Ron Paul is more than just anti-war, he's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)

Treat Ron Paul With Extreme Caution

By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet

27 August 11

'Cuddly' Libertarian has some very dark politics. He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start.

here are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate. "The anti-war Republican," people say, as if that's good enough.

But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he'd be your guy.

Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you, blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)

Ron Paul's anti-war stance, you see, comes not from a cry for peace, but from the deeply held isolationism of the far right. Some may say that, when it comes to ending the slaughter of innocents, the ends justify the means. But, in the case of Ron Paul, the ends involve trading the rights and security of a great many Americans for the promise of non-intervention.

Here's a list - by no means comprehensive - of Ron Paul positions and associates that should explain, once and for all, why no self-respecting progressive could possibly sidle up to Paul.

1) Ron Paul on Race

Based on his religious adherence to his purportedly libertarian principles, Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unlike his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Paul has not even tried to walk back from this position. In fact, he wears it proudly. Here's an excerpt from Ron Paul's 2004 floor speech about the Civil Rights Act, in which he explains why he voted against a House resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the law:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

He also said this: "[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

Ron Paul also occasionally appears at events sponsored by the John Birch Society, the segregationist right-wing organization that is closely aligned with the Christian Reconstructionist wing of the religious right.

In 2008, James Kirchick brought to light in the pages of the New Republic a number of newsletters with Paul's name in the title - Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter - that contained baldly racist material, which Paul denied writing.

At NewsOne, Casey Gane-McCalla reported a number of these vitriolic diatribes, including this, on the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”

In a related piece, Jon C. Hopwood of Yahoo!'s Associated Content cites a Reuters report on Paul's response to the TNR story, which came in the form of a written statement:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

2) Ron Paul on Reproductive Rights

The sponsor of a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul's libertarianism does not apply to women, though it does apply to zygotes. His is a no-exceptions anti-abortion position, essentially empowering a rapist to sire a child with a woman of his choosing. Although Paul attributes his stance on abortion to his background as an ob-gyn physician, it should be noted that most ob-gyns are pro-choice, and that Paul's draconian position tracks exactly with that of his Christian Reconstructionist friends.

While mainstream media, when they're not busy ignoring his presidential campaign in favor of the badly trailing former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, invariably focus on Paul's economic libertarianism, Sarah Posner, writing for the Nation, noted that during his appearances leading up to the Iowa straw poll (in which Paul finished second only to Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minn., by a 200-vote margin), "launched into gruesome descriptions of abortion, a departure from his stump speech focused on cutting taxes, shutting down the Federal Reserve, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing the Patriot Act."

3) Ron Paul on LGBT People

While it's true that Paul advocates leaving it to the states to determine whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, it's not because he's a friend to LGBT people. Paul's position on same-sex marriage stems from his beliefs about the limits of the federal government's role vis-a-vis his novel interpretation of the Constitution.

In fact, a newsletter called the Ron Paul Poltiical Report, unearthed by Kirchick, shows Paul on a rant against a range of foes and conspiracies, including "the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS," to which Paul parenthetically adds, "my training as a physician helps me see through this one." The passage, which also portends a "coming race war in our big cities," complains of the "perverted" and "pagan" annual romp for the rich and powerful known as Bohemian Grove, and takes aim at the "demonic" Skull and Bones Society at Yale, not to mention the "Israeli lobby," begins with the paranoid claim, "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me."

While Paul denied, in 2001, writing most of the scurrilous material that ran, without attribution, in newsletters that bore his name in the title, this passage, according to Jon Hopwood, bears Paul's byline.

Earlier this year, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Paul declared both Social Security and Medicare to be unconstitutional, essentially saying they should be abolished for the great evil that they are - just like slavery. Here's the transcript, via ThinkProgress:

["FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS] WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are.... There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause.... That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse - that very notion that you're presenting.

WALLACE: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal, too, and we had to reverse that.

5) Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionists and the John Birch Society

The year 2008 was a telling one in the annals of Ron Paul's ideology. For starters, it was the year in which he delivered the keynote address [video] at the 50th anniversary gala of the John Birch Society, the famous anti-communist, anti-civil-rights organization hatched in the 1950s by North Carolina candy magnate Robert Welch, with the help of Fred Koch, founder of what is now Koch Industries, and a handful of well-heeled friends. The JBS is also remembered for its role in helping to launch the 1964 presidential candidacy of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., and for later backing the segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace in his 1968 third-party presidential bid.

The semi-secular ideology of the John Birch Society - libertarian market and fiscal theory laced with flourishes of cultural supremacy - finds its religious counterpart, as Fred Clarkson noted, in the theonomy of Christian Reconstructionism, the right-wing religious-political school of thought founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. The ultimate goal of Christian Reconstructionists is to reconstitute the law of the Hebrew Bible - which calls for the execution of adulterers and men who have sex with other men - as the law of the land. The Constitution Party constitutes the political wing of Reconstructionism, and the CP has found a good friend in Ron Paul.

When Paul launched his second presidential quest in 2008, he won the endorsement of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist pastor who travels in Christian Reconstructionist circles, though he is not precisely a Reconstructionist himself (for reasons having to do with his interpretation of how the end times will go down). When Paul dropped out of the race, instead of endorsing Republican nominee John McCain, or even Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Paul endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin (who promised, in his acceptance speech, to uphold the Constitution Party platform, which looks curiously similar to the Ron Paul agenda, right down to the no-exceptions abortion proscription and ending the Fed).

At his shadow rally that year in Minneapolis, held on the eve of the Republican National Convention, Paul invited Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist, to address the crowd of end-the-Fed-cheering post-pubescents. (In his early congressional career, Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches, Paul hired as a staffer Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist leader and Rushdoony's son-in-law.)

At a "Pastor's Forum" at Baldwin's Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Paul was asked by a congregant about his lack of support for Israel, which many right-wing Christians support because of the role Israel plays in what is known as premillennialist end-times theology. "Premillennialist" refers to the belief that after Jesus returns, according to conditions on the ground in Israel, the righteous will rule. But Christian Reconstructionists have a different view, believing the righteous must first rule for 1,000 years before Jesus will return.

They also believe, according to Clarkson, "that 'the Christians' are the 'new chosen people of God,' commanded to do what 'Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do ... create the society that God requires.' Further, Jews, once the 'chosen people,' failed to live up to God's covenant and therefore are no longer God's chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are."

Responding to Baldwin's congregant, Paul explained, "I may see it slightly differently than others because I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn't happen to be reflecting God's views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support ... And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews - that maybe there's a broader definition of that."

At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the "remnant" left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North's publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul's keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, "He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, 'The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'"

Is there a progressive willing to join that fold?

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

I agree. Smear and propaganda If he says he did not say these things, I believe him. Because they go against everything else I've heard Ron Paul say.If you really want to see whether Ron Paul is in bed with Christian extremists, just look at how he voted on ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. He was one of only 15 Republicans who voted to end this discriminatory policy. If he was truly a religious nutjob like the others, there was his chance to pander to that voting base. But what did he do? He stood strong on the side of freedom and equality when it mattered the most. When it was time to vote on a law. To me that speaks volumes about who he is and what he really stands for. Don't take my word for it... Google "Ron Paul vote DADT"

Dear Chick,Please open your mind to the idea that you may have misunderstood,and you see prejudice where there is none because you have been taught to think of people as identified by "groups", such as women, gays, asians, whatever. The principle that Ron Paul believes in, as I do, is that each and every individual has equal rights just because of their humanity - NOT because of what group they are in. Therefore, to talk about "women's rights," rights of the over 65 years, or gay rights, etc. already assumes a mind-set that pits one group against another, and makes them subject to different rules, privileges,obligations, etc. That kind of thinking creates and enables the very injustices that you likely want to avoid. Think about this - any law that violates one person's rights in order to give public money or special privilege to some group, is not just. It is not okay to violate some people in the name of some other group that is somehow deemed more worthy or special. For example - all of the medical needs of the elderly are somehow supposed to be endlessly provided at almost no cost to them, but instead added to the enormous credit card bill for their grandchildren (Medicare). This is fantasy-thinking - it cannot go on and is bankrupting us, morally and financially.

So, let's say you're a member of one of those groups. Let's say you're 75 years old. president paul has taken away your "unconsititutional" Social Security check. Who will hire you now? Now that Medicaid has been ended due to its "unconstitutionality" who will pay your medical bills?

Now let's suppose it's 2041 and you're retired, but you forgot to save $2,000 out of every check for the past 30 years - especially since that's more than you ever made. How will you survive, now that your "group" (of people too old to work) is completely out of food?

Calling Social Security "unconstitutional" ALREADY pits one group against another. It pits people who can afford to pay for something NECESSARY to this country against those who can't.

Hi Billy Bob,First, Soc Security would be gradually replaced with private retirement. Those who have already paid in are owed payments on what they have contributed, with interest. As for your question about medical bills, well who pays them now? Why do you assume that some people deserve to have others pay not only for themselves, by also for others? I don't see any logic here. I don't expect anyone else to pay for my medical bills - do you? Yes, there is a place for charity, but there is no justice in some people getting for free what others must pay for, as well as paying for the others getting the free ride!As for the 2041 argument, well I don't get your point. Obviously if you don't provide for yourself (gee, I forgot!) then you must either find some way to do it, or rely on your family/friends.charity of others. That is reality. What you suggest is to reward people for irresponsibility by then saying gee, you get to forcefully extract money from others to take care of you, on top of them taking care of themselves. No logic or morality here.

Here's my 2041 argument (I wrote it for an article about Bernie Sanders and NO conservatives responded):

Let’s say you’re the median age: 37.Let’s say you want to retire at 70. That’s 33 years from now.The rate of inflation over the last 33 years makes things 3.38 times as expensive as they were 33 years ago (1978).Let’s say the rate of inflation stays the same.Let’s say the average senior’s yearly income including Social Security is about $30,000.Let’s say you plan to never get sick and be hit by a bus on your 90th birthday.

You will need to save enough to pay for 20 years of $101,400 per year. That’s $2,028,000. You have 858 paychecks left to save for it, if you get paid every other week.

You will need to start setting aside $2,363.64 PER PAYCHECK starting RIGHT NOW, to meet that goal. Do you even make that much? Of course, if you’re older than 37, you better hurry and put aside MORE.

Why are you wasting time arguing with liberals about news articles? GET BACK TO WORK!

P.S. I forgot to add that, if you plan to live another 20 years after you're 70, naturally the cost of living will double AGAIN in that time. So, you can either save 2 million to live like you would on $30 thousand per year today and watch it dwindle to the equivalent of $15 thousand a year, OR, you can save $3 million first.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T GET SICK!!!

THAT is what your plan looks like when you actually calculate the math involved.

Billy Bob, Your example shows just how badly inflation robs people of their savings. Don't accept inflation as a natural event. But inflation is the natural result of the Federal Reserve printing too much money and debasing the currency. Bernanke has admitted that inflation is a tax.

Inflation is the most regressive tax there is. It robs the value from seniors citizens who have saved all of their lives.

Let's do the calculations without inflation and just use the money that people already pay into social security.

12.4% for someone making $30,000/yr. is $310/month that's currently going to social security.

Invest that at 5%, what used to be a fair return before Bernanke messed with rates, and you get a nest egg of $311,673 after 33 years. Living off the interest, 5%, will then provide you with income of $26,760/yr. and you'll still have your nest egg to pass onto your heirs.

Keynes wrote about it in 1919.

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some."

"Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

Because the stock market will be roaring (think 2007 not 2009), and while the private retirement is supporting my healthcare expenses (that I cannot afford today), my housing expenses (that I barely can deal today) and my food expenses (That's all all my planned exepenses, I will spend the rest of my years in contemplation) a tooth fairy will stop by and drop a couple of buck under my pillow (which I qwill give to my grandchildren)

Peggy, Great safety net! Rely on family/friends or charity. So you are asking younger generations to support their elders. It’s nice… today Republican candidates are calling it “Ponzi scheme” or big lie. Because that is what Social Security is. Younger generations contribute to a pool and with that money the elder is taken care of. The difference is that the tie that binds both generations is not family but being a contributor to this society. And btw, it distributes the risk of not having children or having very sick children or having very sick parents. It also liberates people to pursue their happiness without feeling the unbearable load of having to take care of elderly, nor put the extra pressure on the elder to die soon to improve the lives of their grandchildren.We can also go 200 years back. When 90% of the population lived in farms, have 10 children each and die at 50. Then you could count on family and friends to support you. We could also do as the Eskimos and many old cultures, when you cannot support yourself go and commit suicide. I still prefer to have our elders around and enjoy them and they with their grandchildren, even when they don’t have de money to take care of themselves

I agree with Paul that every individual has equal rights just because of his or her humanity; but please consider this for a moment. I am a 47 year old white women who grew up in a really patriarchal Italian American town in Pa. As a child I was constantly told that I we less because I am female-- had it drilled into my head that I could not aspire or even consider a career because this was a man's world and I had better get used to it. It has taken me my whole life to undo this programing and to understand myself as a whole person. And compared to many women of color I had it easy. The playing field did not start out level. Programs for women or people of color are designed to level the field-- when that has truly occured then we can happily do away with them. For any kind of true equality to occur it is sometimes important to consider the picture more broadly. That being said, I also appreciate Ron Paul's integrity and feel he is someone who is capable of having an intelligent discussion about these issues.

Sorry I am late answering you Peggy but I really do not think you would like to live in Ron Pauls world.

think of this especially with "Irene Hurricans that just devasted the east coast"

Ron Paul says Hurricane relief isn't the responsibility of the Government, and we should stop using Tax dollars to rescue people.

Apparantly we should go back to the 1900 year disaster policy which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galvaston, Texas at that time.

I guess you also think it's alright for a business to tell someone coming in that he cannot come in because "I do not like your looks"These are his beliefs and his sons. Well if you think he is a nice man, you can have him.

Mmmm...You must be a member of the "anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement." Goody. Just what we need.....

I agree. The propaganda will pour forth to protect the staus quo. This person stands outside this juggernaut and will be destroyed by the Republican/Democrat corporate interests. Right wingers, Liberals ....there's not a lick of difference. They both dance to the international banksters tune.

Nope. No difference between the two parties but the style of presentation. Dig into what Obama is doing, overall, as far as attacking countries, setting up military bases in South America, Wall Street, etc. It is the PNAC in total. The "other side" would do the same in office, but folks won't pay attention because of right wing's silly activities. Should a "republican" actually get elected that agenda would continue.

I agree with what you said whole heartedly HERE but this isn't even close to what you said earlier. You said there's no difference between liberals and conservatives and now you are modifying that to say that liberals and Democrats are the same thing, which is absurd. I will have to at least acknowledge that at least nearly all Republicans are conservatives these days. How many liberal Blue Dog Democrats do you know or have even heard of? I take extreme exception to your implication that all liberals are Democrats and that all Democrats are liberals. That is completely absurd. Perhaps most liberals feel compelled to vote Democratic because there isn't much other choice but that hardly makes them Democrats.

If you are addressing your comments to me, Glen, then you have just proved how complicated the two "parties" are, but those in true power and office adhere to the same agenda. Personally, I have never equated liberals with Democrats or vice verse. It is just semantics. Most folks, no matter how they categorize themselves, must vote either democrat or republican, or, futilely, vote third party.

The beat goes on, however, but few voters ever read documents of real import, such as the PNAC, Patriot Act, most bills passed, and so forth. They simply go with the television foofahrah of how candidates are presented in the never ending presidential races.

In office, there are only a handful of true liberals or conservatives left. If you are of any age, you will recognize that fact.

GlenI apologize. I was addressing my remarks to bookemdano, not you. I should have made that clear or directly responded to his post, instead of your reply to it... sorry. I agree with what you have written. for all intents and purposes, Obama IS a Republican. No Republican President could have ever gotten away with voluntarily putting Social Security on the chopping block.

Ron Paul receives virtually all of his record-breaking contributions from grassroots people who mostly don't have much, but they want liberty and are willing to get up and do something about it. THE CORPORATIONS ACTIVELY FIGHT AGAINST RON PAUL BECAUSE HE ALWAYS VOTES THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT MEANS THEY GET NO FAVORS FROM HIM. HE CANNOT BE BOUGHT. But this apparently does not appeal to you.

So who do you support? Obama? Hillary? Romney? Perry? THESE ARE THE MAIN CORPORATE SPECIAL INTEREST DONATION RECIPIENTS AND ADVOCATES.

I'm with you Burner...Ron Paul can't be bought and that is why the media & government are so afraid of him ~ they have to ignore him or lie about him. Too much money & power at stake for those that want our nation buckled to her knees. He would expose and dismantle the corruption, starting with the Fed Res stealing trillions of our money and giving it to their wealthy bankster friends. He's in the way of the elitists because he intends to put us back on our Constitution. I feel very sorry people who haven't seen the accelerated damage that has been done to this country, our economy and employment the last 2 1/2 years. I feel very sorry for people who think all these illegal wars slaughtering innocent children are OK, not to mention all the other deaths. And this is just the tip of the iceberg! If we do not take back our country now, our children and grandchildren do not have much of an 'American' future.

One can, in fact, abhor war and corporate/government corruption and still not support Ron Paul for president. His misogyny, homophobia and callous disregard for people of modest means suggest a general disregard for human rights and equality. His extremist religious views are equally disturbing. We cannot afford a president who willfully ignores his responsibility to "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty." There are very few people in the world we can trust these days. Ron Paul is definitely not one of them.

Adele, Adele, Adele...I am so deeply sorry to hear you write these misleading interpretations. His response to the Pastor's Forum's absurd doctrine was perfect and reflected no agreement. By simply putting Paul's name within the paragraph you suggest a lie. I had sincerely believed that you were not for sale....

Ummmm... I guess I thought that Libertarians were of the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" stripe. So maybe Ron Paul should be called a Christian Fundamentalist Libertarian, since they are the "anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt" branch of the Repubs. A bit surprising. So, the Libertarians have been co-opted, too, by the lunatic right. Unfortunate.

despite the author's contrary intentions and negative spin, taking things out of context, this article actually is not bad. Of course he does mention any of the good things about Dr. Paul (i.e.-he's the only candidiate for either party not completely owned and controlled by powerful special interests like AIPAC, the military industrial complex and Wll Street banksters), but if this is the worst one can do in a hit piece about Dr. Paul, I'm optimistic about his chances in 2012.

He isn't against equal rights. Look how he voted on Don't Ask Don't Tell.

If you believe the smears in this article and really think he is aligned with the religious far right nutjob wackos, you haven't been paying much attention to his voting record or the things he's been saying all along.

Go on YouTube and search "Ron Paul Explains Why It's OK To Legalize Heroin" and watch what he says in the debate, and then tell me you think he caters to the religious right. Utterly ridiculous.

Thank you, it's getting annoying seeing progressives cheer for Paul, he's to the right of Bush and a racist to boot. A person would have to be delusional to believe that he was unaware of the contents of his newsletter bearing his name. I know that we're desperate to hear prominent politicians challenging the status quo and Paul is willing to fill that role on a few issues but there's a lot more to his ideology as this article illustrates.

There are plenty of people out there speaking truth to power, they just don't register Republican and are dismissed by the media as the left wing fringe giving Ron Paul undeserved prominence.

Sure. Reagan would be thrown out by the Tea Party for being a socialist and the media would enable them, he raised taxes repeatedly to keep the budget from getting more out of control. The terms are meaningless, we've absolutely lost the center. Any fact that challenges Republican propaganda is 'liberal bias' today.

Sure. Reagan would be thrown out by the Tea Party for being a socialist and the media would enable them, he raised taxes repeatedly to keep the budget from getting more out of control. The terms are meaningless, we've absolutely lost the center. Any fact that challenges Republican propaganda is 'liberal bias' today.

Obviously you have no clue. Reagan did not propose the bizarre spending increases, he opposed them, but Congress passed them, no SHRIEKINGLY INSISTED on MASSIVE increases in spending, all so they could blame it on Reagan. Reagan vetoed many such spending bills. Just not enough. He should have vetoed any and all such bills until the Dems shut the hell up and stopped lying. And Reagan did not raise taxes, at all much less "repeatedly", it was the Dem-controlled Congress.

To the media, overwhelmingly left wing, any reason or fact of reality is "right wing extremism" today.

But Paul will just point out the truth and the big-spenders will choke.

I see people pushing left, then right, I see arguments to and fro, But I didn't get the impression today watching FOX News Sunday that Dr. Paul wants to take that money. In fact he says it would be so much easier to, if we weren't spending trillions on other peoples wars!~ Ignorance thinks he's racist. He's not, and he used to quote MLK during some of his debates. No President EVER got what "he" wanted, except Obama now. Ron Paul wants Congress to rule, not the President. You should all see the video. He was magnanimous. Held Chris Wallace at bay, even when Chris tried to make Ron look funny, Ron blew him away. Right now the Pole for presidency is 45% Ron Paul, 47% Obama. FREEDOM from all this "more of the same BS" is what "We the people" want. RP 2012!~

Leo, I, too, watched Ron Paul this morning, with a friend who watches FOX only on Sunday morning. Paul was impressive declaring the attacks on Libya, and other countries, illegal, and that the money, along with the National Guard, needs to be here in the U.S. He criticized the corruption within FEMA and the redirection of funding and all things related. His comments on veterans was impressive.

However, he bucks the system and agenda set forth in the PNAC that Obama, George W., and Clinton carried on and will never be a crowned head, approved of by the most powerful of the Bilderberg group, Wall Street, and so on. BUT he does need to keep talking and reminding all citizens of the crimes of the U.S. government, the corruption, and the underlying agenda that is destroying the U.S.

Think that list convinced me. He does seem far better than the Perrys or Bachmans of the Republican Party but did not realize how he felt about gays, women, abortion,and Social Security. Was favoring him mostly on his opposition to the wars and war making politicians. Guess that leaves me with no Republican to vote for; maybe Huntsman?

Gary Johnson the former Republican Gov. of New Mexico seem like pretty good guy !..........looks like the medias blacking him out!..........they { the shadow government } don,t like certain types getting to far !.......remember what they did to Howard dean !......well thats all moot anyway now after the U$ $upreme court gave us citizens united !.......the 2012 elections gonna look more like a P.B.S. auction then any thing that went before !

Paul is not racist or sexist. He wants abortion choice to be decided at the state level (I'm pro-choice myself). As he repeatedly indicates, he does not want to end Social Security for those who depend on it, though he would like people to be able to opt out of their own choice.

Please look more closely at Dr. Paul. You'll find he's the only candidate in the race who isn't bought and paid-for by the corporate-fascist establishment.

Research Huntsman before you vote for him. He signed three pieces of anti-choice legislation as governor of Utah. He is anti-gay marriage. He favors the Bush tax cuts and advocates the deceptive flat tax, endangering the bitterly poor. I fear republicans like the old Borg of Star Trek are adapting faster than we know. The new strategy is simple. Look sane and sucker the independent voter.

It's the fed govts job to protect our individual liberty, not lump us together and buy us off with whatever they can steal from taxpayers!

RP doesn't want to separate us further by classifying us as members of a minority. He feels we are all equal under the law. That's why we pleadge our allegiance 'To the Republic!'

The fact that I'm black/white, male/female, over/under 65, employed/retired, or any other group that further takes away my individuality is of no consequence to him, or me.

Once we get out of the mindset that we deserve something because we fit the description, whether its money, health-insurance, or a job--and realize that we are ONLY ENTITLED to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the "PURSUIT" OF HAPPINESS (no guarantees of happiness--only the freedom to pursue it!), we will see that RP is the ONLY viable candidate out there.

Ron Paul 2012

PS: With Soc Sec bankrupt, the national debt at it's highest in history, an entitlement tab exceeding $100 trillion, the wars we're involved in, states unable to pay for welfare programs, etc...how much longer do you think it will be before labels and groups will be a thing of the past?

The fact that he is in favor of states deciding the abortion question belies his libertarian stance. If your position that we are all the same and no group deserves special (individuated) treatment is ridiculous, and is the crux of the argument used against choice. After all, the fact that women risk our lives to bring children into the world is of no consequence... to men (at least as far as legal distinctions go). Why should we receive special protection from narrow minded religious fanatics who would have us all subservient to men and producing scads of unthinking cannon fodder for the church and state? After all, that has been the norm for centuries; how dare us women think that we could participate in a democratic republic to protect our interests! Just who do we think we are anyway, special or something?

My pursuit of happiness includes not bearing children I do not want, nor does it include living in constant fear that some man who wants a kid can simply rape me (and probably get by with it in court) to get one. If Dr. Paul was a real libertarian, he would unequivocally support protection for a woman's right to choose at the federal level. Of course he is not a real libertarian, but just the closest thing to one we will find in the "leadership" of the Republican party.

Reading through Adele M. Stan's bullet points, it would appear that everything Ron Paul believes in mirrors GOP philosophy beautifully. I wonder why they continue to ignore him? The fact that his own party is treating him like a stepchild is reason for pause.

How could any progressive ever have considered supporting him? the only thing I ever agreed with him on is his position on our antiquated drug laws. Hes' just as much a hypocrite as anyone else. How can a Libertarian who's hands off by government be anti choice?

Very enlightening article. Ron Paul is obviously a hard core extremist. It is good to make his real thinking public, Not just for us because we would never vote for him. The public at large must know what this man stands for. He is a true bigot, extreme on every thing, no compromise, no tolerance. It is truly possible for him to seduce voters on his side as he is pro flat tax and anti-war but his other positions are IT IS NOT IN THE CONTSITUTION so it is not legal. That 'jackass' approach is truly disconcerting when a candidate is driven by his own unrelentng interpretation of the constitution and nothing else matters. Shows he is not 'bright' after all.. just another dim-witted Right winger.

First off, I grew up in the progressive, radical, liberal, leftist world and have very strong leanings in many of those directions. However, there is no one representing that part of the spectrum with any integrity. I've been living in Vermont and California for the past 40 years, so I'm very familiar with the ACTUAL performance of my representatives, personally in somes cases. Dennis Kucinich is the only one I can think of with any integraty, spine and balls to stand up for what many of us really believe in. ALL the rest are spineless worms. It has taken me 40 hard years of disillusionment to fully realize that sad truth.OK, back to Ron Paul. Granted, he's not perfect. In the past I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils Democratic candidate solely on the basis of reproductive rights for women.Ron Paul is totally against public funding of abortion, however, he is not in favor of illegalizing abortion like many of the lunatics on the right.Granted, he is not in favor of federal laws supporting gay marraige and affirmative action. I can see the constitutional rational behind limiting the power of the federal government. And, let's face it, the current public school system is not only broken but is sliding down the fast track to oblivion. However, that doesn't make him anti-woman, anti-black, anti-gay or anti-education. You are twisting the truth.

That is the short of it. Now if only enough of us had to balls to accept this state of affairs for what it is, and do what really needs to be done - abandon this Titanic, lock, stock and deck chairs. No more senseless investing in this black hole of a corporately and financialy corrupted system that will NOT be given back to the people.Unfortunately, collapse is our only hope. And the sooner the better. The more we draw it out the more catastrophic the crisis will be when it finally hits the fan.And, to address others' points that there are some good people in government. Sure, there are some, but they have little significant power to do good, and they absolutely know it. Our current system only works for those whose agenda is aligned with corporate interests, which are now virtually opposite of the people of this planet, at this point at which the old paradigm of growth is now impossible.Ron Paul is the only candidate whose essential platform bucks that paradigm at a conprehensive level.Of course, he'll never get elected. And if he did he would be assassinated as soon as he did anything threatening the status quo of the undead corporate zombie that feeds on us and our future generations.It's not a pretty picture. Piecemeal solutions won't save us or our children.

A canidate that wants to bring home all of our troops immediately. Ron Paul wants to return powers to the STATES. Social Security is doomed, it's just a matter of time. He wants to give young people a chance to opt out social security and medicare.

Government schools aren't underfunded -- the money is simply going into administration and bureaucracy instead of getting to teachers and the classroom.

I ran for school board in San Francisco, and asked the district Superintendent, Carlos Garcia, for a list of the district's employees, by position and salary, and to put this information online for the public.

He said that was too difficult to do because there were too many employees, and there were too many other things staff needed to do! I volunteered to do the data entry myself -- he essentially blew me off.

Running for school board isn't the same as actually administering a school district. My brother just retired early as a school superintendant and became a deacon. Why? Because he couldn't take laying off good teachers any more and sitting by while money was drained out of the school system. This was in an almost exclusively white part of the mid-west where the schools are relatively well funded compared to other parts of the country.

If you don't believe PUBLIC schools are underfunded, ask one of those "overpaid" teachers.

"Twisting the truth"? Twisting is what Liberals and neocons do best -actually, it's all they know how to do.

But then again, can you "twist" the truth, if you do not know what the truth is?

Adele Stan lives in fantasy world - like the matrix - a separate reality from the real world. She's a pod person who does as she is told and does not question the reality that is given to her. It's like that Neocon guy, Michael ledeen who brags about his doctrine of "creative destruction" of creating their own truth - their own reality - and spoon feeding it to the ignorant sheeple.

the left has their own matrix, their own fantasy creating apparatus. Not sure which one ms. Stan subscribes to, but it doesn't matter. They're basically the same.

Granted, he is not in favor of federal laws supporting gay marraige and affirmative action. I can see the constitutional rational behind limiting the power of the federal government.

Ron Paul is against ANY funding whatsoever. Doesn't matter what the cause. Be it CDC, NASA or social programs. He would prefer a "National Sales Tax" which benefits the wealthy and penalizes the poor and middle class.

The differences between Ron Paul and the Tea Party are minute. They both want to see government limited - not just a bit but SEVERELY limited. Ron Paul's vision of the future is that there should be no disaster relief. Ron Paul's words are: “We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960.”

I too have lived in Vermont and California, and have a very different interpretation of the voting records of my representatives. Barbara Boxer, for instance, has an excellent record as Senator. I doubt that you or Ron Paul would improve on that. Our local Congressman, Bob Filner, also has an impressive voting record. Could your emotions be coloring your research into "actual performance"? Could your "familiarity" be woefully incomplete as knowledge?

Barbara Boxer, for instance, has an excellent record as Senator. ... Could your emotions be coloring your research into "actual performance"? Could your "familiarity" be woefully incomplete as knowledge?

Or could it be that you want big government and don't trust people? Could it be that you like it that Boxer would shred the Constitution and its American Republic? Could it be that you have no clue, because you have swallowed the kool-aid? Could it be that your "complete knowlege" is naught more than propaganda by tyrants? Could it be that what "impresses" you is the destruction of Liberty?

Well people get to vote for their government. People DON'T get to vote for the CEO of Chase Manhattan, or Goldman Sachs.

Once again, I'm for people being allowed to VOTE for what they want, rather than having that right taken away from them under the guise of "liberty", for those who don't like the way the vote is going.

Well people get to vote for their government. People DON'T get to vote for the CEO of Chase Manhattan, or Goldman Sachs.

Once again, I'm for people being allowed to VOTE for what they want, rather than having that right taken away from them under the guise of "liberty", for those who don't like the way the vote is going.

When people vote from the public trough it is theft. NONE of the problems you have cited anywhere here is the doing of Liberty. The problem is that you have ZERO concept of Liberty.

If you have a right to vote to loot anyone else, then anyone else has a right to vote to loot YOU. Your concept of democracy is that you have the former, but no one else has the latter. Clearly the existence of the former IS the existence of the latter, THEY ARE THE SAME. You think that you are protected by demographics, because you are dirt poor and someone else is rich, but the approach you approve of is exactly how G-S and CM got the legal power to ream you out.

Liberty does indeed insist that no one has the right to vote to loot you. In Liberty CM or G-S GET NO BAILOUTS or any other special favors. It is only ANY anti-Liberty system, including Democracy, that gives them these privileges.

I beg your pardon but when you (Ron and his son) Business should have the power to regect anyone coming into a restaurant or business because they do not like the "looks" of the person is not right.

When he says the government should not spend tax money to help people when there is an earthquake or hurricane, that is not good.

In the 1900S there was a hurricane in Galveston, Texas that killed 6,000 with no help from the government that was not good. And that is what they want to go back to the 1900 where Government does not help people.

The rich surly do not need it they can jump on an airplane and leave and come back and easily build again. The middle and poor would be screwed. What would be their answer===Well they should have worked harder and saved their money.

This article is atrocious. I was hoping to learn something about Paul's actual positions on the issues, rather than uncited quotes he has denied writing and ridiculous implications that Ron Paul must somehow represent 100% of the views of his supporters.

This is exactly the sort of drivel we would see written on right-wing sites about Obama's associations with Manning and Ayers. Embarrassing -- it's apparent that the author of this article is grasping at straws to support his foregone conclusions. Serious journalism this is not.

I really really like his stance on war/defense spending and the Fed ie monetary policy, plus quite a few other ideas he has. When he speaks, many of his social positions seem more nuanced than this article, but granted this article felt scary to read. I'll out myself in the interest of full disclosure: Ind. Progressive. Not senior, gay/lesbian, minority, children or planning children and/or in danger of pregnancy/abortion issues. I have great empathy socially and certainly wouldn't want social Draconianism, but I feel that's really what we have now - plus slavery, electoral chicanery, fascism and/or financial globalism with perpetual war to boot. I'd prefer a change. I have to admit, Ron Paul resonates with me on so much - even if we disagree on other important issues. In the R field - he'd be the only one I'd ever consider. In my mind a great 2012 race for POTUS would be Bernie Sanders vs. Ron Paul. Crikey, it would feel like the USA again and my joy would abound. At least they'd value the US and stop selling our blood, sweat and Treasury out to corporations.

That was reasonable and well spoken. Although I have followed Ron Paul for many, many years and am aware of nearly everything in the article from my own past investigating and reading, I too find much of what he says attractive but the down side to his beliefs is simply to great to overcome. Oh, I too am an independent progressive. I will certainly give this to Ron Paul. He has no fear about saying what he believes and I find that very admirable. You would be hard pressed indeed to find someone without some endearing qualities.

Oh wait... hair. It's been some years since Playdoh's Fuzzy Pumper Barber Shop - so, the hair nostalgia is warm. Fuzzy Pumper never opened it's mouth and spewed cherry pits like that weird lady on Witches of Eastwick though. They do.

Ron Paul does not believe in government´s interfering with peoples´choices. I have heard him say many times that if people choose live a gay lifestyle, then it is their choice not to be denied or supported by government. He would have the states handle abortion. Personally I am against it in most circumstances, but if it were a state matter than a woman who wants one could go to a state in which it is legal. People should be able to make their own choices and then enjoy the consequences of their choices whether the consequences are good or bad. I don´t want the state teaching my grandchildren. I give tens of thousands of dollars for the education of children though I am not rich. I just strongly believe that my money should go where my mouth is.

If the big bankers were not buying our cheap politicians, we would have plenty of money to support ourselves and support our charities.

So, Betty, those pregnant women looking for an abortion should just jump in their (non-existent) cars and drive? Or maybe they can book a flight out of state, rent a car and a hotel room with their (non-existent)credit cards? What world do you live in?

GeeRob - I'd say that the "morning after" pill, which is not a form of abortion because it acts before there is a fetus to abort, should be widely available, which I think it is more likely to be if we elect people like Ron Paul who support competition and choice instead of stacking the system in favor of the big corporations like HMOs, then most women won't have to experience unwanted pregnancies and seek abortions.

The morning after pill is widely available, over the counter, to anyone 17 years or older. It is by far a better solution than a later abortion. However, according to the Mayo Clinic, the morning after pill does 3 things:It prevents or delays ovulationIt blocks ovulationIt keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterusPlease note that last one, the fertilized egg.I firmly believe that Dr. Paul does have a problem with the morning after pill.

GeeRob--Or they could just go through security at the airport...the back-scatter scanners could kill her baby for free, and she doesn't even have to buy a ticket!

Ain't life grand? (oops--sorry, I forgot you support baby killers).

Per your comment, are you suggesting that we taxpayers foot the bill for travel and expenses so pregnant women can have their defenseless babies vacuumed out of their wombs and tossed in the garbage? I'm just trying to be clear about how much you think I'm financially responsible to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

Can you read? It's your idol, Ron Paul, who wants the abortion issue decided by the states. Apparently logic isn't your strength. Abortion isn't a black/white issue; lots of gray in there, too. But go ahead, keep pushing for those back alley abortions. They were all the rage in the 50's and 60's.I support a government that keeps its nose out of the most difficult decision a woman may ever have to make. But wait! Doesn't Paul want government out of our business? Apparently not.

Betty said that Ron Paul wants states to determine their own abortion laws without federal involvement.

Then you asked what a woman should do if she's pregnant and want's an abortion but doesn't have a car or hotel money to travel to a state that provides them.

That led me to believe that you want federal involvement so it's legal in ALL 50 states (to keep it simple for abortion-seekers), regardless of how the people in that state voted.

THEN you said you support a govt that keeps its nose out of personal decisions. (Apparently, logic isn't YOUR strong suit!)

So which is it? You either support a federal regulation that makes abortion laws uniform in all 50 states, or you support states rights to rule according to the will of the people.

Yes, I can read just fine...can you?

Ron Paul 2012

BTW: What part of my comment was 'pushing for back alley abortions?' I'm 100% "pro-choice" in that we all have a choice of using condoms, the pill, the 'depo' shot, the nuva-ring, voluntary sterilization, abstinence, and adoption--but NEVER murder. For real...who here thinks that abortion is a real option when all the others are readily available?

Do you realize that there is a difference between making abortion legal and making abortion mandatory? That's called logic. I would recommend that you try it sometime but you're the woman who tried driving on the dirt beneath the road. Thanks for the laugh.

Abortion is the ONLY option that remains when all those you list have failed (except adoption, which requires a woman to risk death-especially true because we have the highest infant/mother mortality rate of any industrialized nation).

So Andrea, is it your position that I should go about armed and ready to shoot any man that I think could potentially rape me so that I can take personal responsibility for not getting pregnant? Law enforcement might frown on that. And sweetie, apparently you've never used a condom. Not fool-proof, those things. They break pretty easily, if they don't slip off first. Every form of birth control has a failure rate, and a subset of women who are intolerant of or allergic to it.

No the best thing is for all of you moralists to mind your own flippin' business and keep you nose out of my personal affairs. In spite of your implication, women are not asking you to pay for our abortions, just to mind your business and stay out of ours.

There is a small problem with your thinking about state's rights control of abortion. Sure, wealthy women could easily go to another state where abortion was legal, if it were illegal in their home state, but what of all the women who simply didn't have enough money to go to another state where it were legal? You've taken yourself right back to where you didn't want to be, a society of privilege for the wealthy and screw everyone else.

If you remove the requirement, you MAKE Social Security insolvent. As I've said on other threads, you'll need to personally save over 2 million dollars to cover the loss of Social Security in your old age if people aren't funding it.

How far along are you in saving that 2 million dollars. If you don't want it to be required that we fund it, you better stop arguing and work a few extra jobs, so you can save the extra $2,ooo a paycheck you'll need to make that goal.

You make the choices right now that will affect the rest of your life. If you don't need Social Security yet, that will change and so will your mind.

Billy Bob - Now you're being disingenuous. It's not about you being able to choose to pay for government-run schools and Social Security. It's about you trying to force EVERYONE to pay for these things, whether they want them or not.

Live and let live. That's what Ron Paul is about.

In a libertarian society, liberals can have their wealth-redistribution programs, and conservatives can have their faith-based stuff and militarism -- but the difference is that EACH SIDE MUST PAY FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA, instead of using the power of government to force everybody else to subsidize it.

Seems to me we have two camps in this debate so the above reference to Rwanda is appropriate. One side views Americans as a community with the Jim Hightower notion of 'we all do better when we all do better. The other side supports roughshod individualism under the guise of 'live and let live.' I'm a community person myself. I'm not comfortable with hungry children, uneducated people or homelessness. I also like my food regulated and inspected.

No he wouldn't...you ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT to donate your time, talent, and money to whatever you want, and he's made NO CLAIMS that would change that.

Although you mention the people that CHOOSE to support public schools and Soc Sec, WHERE, EXACTLY, do you consider it a choice? Soc Sec is deducted from MY LABOR before I even get it; and if you don't pay property taxes for the schools (whether you have kids or not), the feds can take your property and kick you to the curb. But it was awfully sweet of you to church it up and call it a 'choice.' ;)

I think the point pro-choice groups make on the State issue is a logistic and demographic one. Basically this: imagine poor women, or a domestic abuse case of any age, time off work or school with any privacy, bus or drive to another state or perhaps two or three or... away for services at their own expense now that the funding is cut off or it's illegal, the stigma beyond the personal experience. It gives rise to local back alley options. Potentially deadly. We may as well say "suck it, your life is slated for low pay, low education poverty potentially for generations, but hey, you and your offal by whatever means can always join the military - cheer up - rah rah life!"

why treat him with caution. he's a mutant politician. they're like roaches impervious to most toxins including radiation. and remember, he gave you rand paul. also his followers are rude, angry small minded cretins.

Err, and to Sarah Posner at The Nation... thanks for that. I was traumatized by the "dropping fetal matter in bucket" debate riff Ron Paul delivered in Iowa. It felt psychologically twisty and gruesome and beyond inappropriate. I'm not his free therapist, I'm a citizen. Don't dump on me, Ron. For me: it's not just the life, but the quality of it AND whose actual life we're talking about that matters. I also find it funny that any zygote is celebrated by the same individuals who refuse them education, food, health and dignity once they leave a womb? I can't reconcile the hypocrisy. It'd be easier to hear many folks if they'd stop jumping up my hoo hoo. It's personal and no, they weren't invited.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is talking about attacking the real problem with the economy, the Federal reserve. If he were to get his way and the Fed be either severely restricted, or preferably dissolved, I believe that that would fix the economy, and once that is fixed many of these other problems would disappear. It is much easier to attack society problems when the society is successful.

The Federal Reserve only service Big Banks by "loaning" money at almost zero interest that the Big Banks loan back at about 2 to 4 percent when they are not loaning it to consumers at almost 30 percent. What a racket especially since it drives up the deficit and debt without representation (it's about 20% of the federal debt). Paul is right on target and should be supported for his singular efforts in this regard alone. All the small solvent banks and credit unions that support consumers and small businesses are still waiting for the stimulus that create jobs and demand while the Big Banks are doing their best to create another Great Recession on top of the one we suffer from now.

I'm very sorry to see RSN sort of lemming-like, endorsing by publishing this bad piece of journaism. Many of your commenters are merely parroting their own "prejudices" by repeating the catch phrase headers in the piece. Here's the core of the Alternet post: " a very close reading of the anti-Paul article has taken me from a somewhat indifferent observer of the man, with no disposition to support him, to someone who may pay more attention to his statements. (in the article) there is constant "guilt by association", along with conversion of highly individualized statements by Paul, into violations of PC code ..... as for the zygote matter, well, at least he's not coming from Christianity per se. ... in sum, I trust the man not to lie. And that comes from a series of brief assessments "in the gut" over time, For president? Perhaps not. But not from the manipulative conclusions incorrectly derived within this article .. Obama will support endless war. Apparently, Paul will not. And, that's a lot!"

Yes, Ron Paul's opposition to war is both highly commendable and quite a lot, however, surrendering my civil rights is also quite a lot and not worth putting anyone remotely like Ron Paul in the White House. What possible difference does it make to a woman who is being forced to carry a fetus to term, after being raped or actually, for whatever reason, whether or not it is because of Christian ideals or whatever reason you think Ron Paul is using?

Paul is anti labor, anti federal regulation, and anti government safety programs, that is enough for a very anti war person like myself to vote against Paul, we need more like Bernie Sanders who support the poor, working class and anti corporate warmongers, not right wing libertarians who look to the dark sides of the past to fix the future like Paul.

If you have noticed, the numbers beside each were originally there to indicate approval or disapproval, but as I have noticed one's selection frequently does not change the number shown, and in some cases actually is 'scored' the opposite to ones selection. Shame on RSN.

You moron! It is a running total. There is no telling how many people have voted between the time you clicked on your choice and the last update. I have a degree in computer science, which I admit gives me a bit more insight into this than you, but this should be fairly obvious to anyone with a wit of sense.

Presidential candidate and twelve term congressman Ron Paul is the most consistant voice against war, militarism, and the American empire ever to reside in public office.

He is a man of unwavering integrity and compassionate toleration.

His unshakable adherence to the Constititution and fidelity to first principles are exemplary. His shinning model as a statesman will be recorded in our history books for generations to come.

Because he speaks truth to power about the imperial welfare-warfare state, he is feared by the power elites of both parties and their shills in the mainstream media.

For decades he has fought against these establishment elites: against corporatism and special privilege; against the preemptive wars of aggression and the military-industrial complex; against torture and rendition; against the CIA's nefarious covert actions which have had foreign policy 'blowback' and destructive consequences; against the neocon notions of the US as the world's policeman and the domestic police state at home; against the USA Patriot Act and the destruction of the Fourth Amendment.

Progressives do themselves a great disservice to give credence to mendacious lies and character assassination distortions of this champion of the people's liberties and rights.

Unlike Corporate Lite Obama and certainly unlike any of his GOP opponents, progressives are interested in the elder Paul because he courageously speaks out against the "militarism" and "corporatism" that is destroying the American Dream and justice in our society. Sadly, the GOP only serves the very rich and corporate elite and will never allow Ron Paul to be nominated to run for the Presidency.

paul's libertarian economic philosophy has little if anything to do with racism or sexism and this array of quotes does nothing to indicate anything other than that he is a libertarian...the fact is that racism in america is a curse as ugly as it ever was and the liberal system-supporting programs of quota hiring and affirmative action (for some) negative action (for most) has done exactly as paul says: nothing...blacks in american are still at the very bottom, perhaps more so than ever, even lower than some immigrants unable to speak the language and illegal at that...thank you liberal bleeding hearts?

in fact, his brand of "real" free market capitalism might help bring us closer to democratic socialism by speeding up the contradictions that liberals thrive on extending, in order to preserve the rule of corporate capital and the status quo while faking their credentials as humanitarians supporting wars all over the globe...at least with paul we'd have a brief period of less foreign slaughters and maybe concentrate more closely on what a farce this system is and he with it, though compared to the others he can seem almost sane...

Right, he would further push a free market de-regulating everything there is remaining to de-regulate; no clean air, no clean water, no banking or credit regulation and that is just a start. Then he would 'reform' taxation, keeping in mind he is wealthy so has no reason to reform it fairly, his plan? Yep, National Sales Tax which will cost those at the bottom of the economic spectrum the most.

No public schools, no public services, no disaster relief...well that means everyone without that spare million will be ignorant within within a generation and living at risk as well.

Lest we forget, without regulation there will also be no minimum wage laws, no employment laws, no OSHA and very shortly no 40 hour work weeks, no benefits. The world of Ron Paul is a third world nation view. He would put all of us at risk, because he couldn't care less as long as his warped vision is fed.

While the current crop may be imperfect, I will take imperfect over frightening any day.

So, when you peel back the wordsmithing, you've arrived at the conundrum that Ron Paul is the only peace candidate. Ron Paul is the only candidate for the people against corporatism; the only one that hasn't sold out to big money (. . . voting records, people). And what's all this about the Constitution? At the end of the day it means you get to decide locally as a community what you want to do rather than having a bunch of old men in Washington make the decisions for you. The choice is back in the community where it belongs.

Do you really think Soc Sec is even going to be there when it's our turn to retire?? NOPE!

You make it sound like without Big Brother around, people couldn't find water if they fell out of a freakin boat! Do you honestly believe that before the US Fed Govt, there was no clean air or safe food? Gee...how did people ever survive prior to the last 220 years without big govt there? And just who do you think it was that screwed up our water and air in the first place?

By the way...bang up job the FDA is doing at protecting us from contaminated food! E.coli spinach anyone? How about some tainted peanut butter? No? Why not take a look at all the drugs that our FDA approved that kill more people every year than 'illegal' drugs do?

I'm not trying to make you crys, but if you bothered to look at the FDA you would see that they are the ones that block people from being able to sue the pharma cos when the govt was entertaining the idea of making H1N1 vaccines mandatory. Imagine that! A quickie-pandemic-scare, a rush-job to pump out untested vaccines, our fed govt on-board with making them mandatory, leaving US citizens unable to sue for damages caused by the vaccines.

Ron Paul is not perfect but to call him anti-black, anti-woman and anti-gay is a little misleading. He has his own beliefs about abortion, gay marriage and such but he want's those issues to be up to the states to decide (he won't be pursuing those things on a federal level). For him to be anti-war (for what ever reason) is so huge (no other candidate is even close to that), wants oversight with the fed and wanting to end the "war on drugs," this would be a really good start and I don't see any other candidate considering any of these things. He doesn't appear to be bought and paid for and he tells the truth. He is also a constitutionalist, so he points out that certain policies, by definition, are not constitutional. If something is by definition "unconstitutional," Ron Paul is going to be fundamentally against it.

Wow,anyone who believes this propaganda list of twisted words and lies about Ron Paul w/out doing any further research deserve what they get. The only thing Ron Paul is is Anti-Large Government. He is for everyone making their own choices no matter their race, sex, et al, and this includes who they marry whether same or opposite sex or their race He doesn't believe the government should interfere in our private affairs. He's for peace and will bring us home from the wars that are really none of our business and should be resolved within their own countries, being a noninterventionist. He is anti-NWO and anti-open borders for security reasons. He is a constitutionalist all the way and his records shows he has always according to the constitutino. He is for people coming to America legally like all of our citizens have throughout history. He is for free trade w other countries w/ American goods and giving us more jobs by things being made here in the USA. This makes him anti-Isolationist. He is for cutting back on top-heavy gov programs which will help lower our deficit and lower our taxes too because people will be back to work. He doesn't believe in the income tax, which, the income tax is against our constitution anyway. Before you believe this list of twisted BS and unsubstantiated words, and lies. Do some research from both sides of the spectrum.

His associations with the John Birch Society are extremely problematic, putting him right in line with the far right on the issues of race, gender and sexual orientation being without any civil rights. Keep in mind one of his statements has been, repeatedly his desire to return to an earlier time when these groups had zero rights under the Constitution, in fact in some cases they had stated sub-zero rights; meaning less rights than the average White Male.

He is anti regulation of any sort, this means he doesn't care whether the car you buy, the water you drink or the air you breath is safe so long as the corporation is making profit you can hang. Further, he is anti union, which means the employee will be left with nothing, no benefits, no minimum wage; no protections.

He is anti public education, it will only take one generation before we tumble into ignorance as the majority will not be able to afford private education.

Done the research. He is all this list claims and far worse. With the exception of his stance on war and drugs, he is a nightmare.

Problem with that is that you have done it from a mindset that sees individual people as being dangerous, and big government, up to and including tyranny, as the answer to all problems, except war and drugs. The social "theories" you learned in govt approved education are wrong.

And you have a weird way of twisting the truth into the opposite, for instance, quotas and special group privileges are not "civil rights" despite whatever propaganda you have swallowed. And there is this gem: "one of his statements has been, repeatedly his desire to return to an earlier time when these groups had zero rights under the Constitution"

Are you opposed to the Constitution? Ron Paul has never stated that he wanted to turn back the clock. Perhaps you would prefer the Soviet "Constitution"?

The Constitution is about Individual Rights, despite the 3/5 person clause which existed ONLY because of those struggling for YOUR form of government, ie, government control of everything (except drugs as you state). But the 3/5 clause is not your concern, because you do believe in collectivistic group privileges, and never question it.

You have not done any research, because you wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it hit you in the face.

The problem with your argument is that it sees individuals as being able to take care of themselves, which clearly they are not.

Did you drive to work today on a road you buildt for yourself? Do you drink safe drinking water? Did you go to school? Do you work for a company which has received no help from the federal government? Does your car come with a safety belt? Does the bank still have your savings, or has it been lost in a run on the banks? Who would you call if your house was burning down?

The problem with your argument is that it sees individuals as being able to take care of themselves, which clearly they are not.

Did you drive to work today on a road you buildt for yourself? Do you drink safe drinking water? Did you go to school?

The problem with your argument is that you believe that individuals cannot function without being tyrannized. You believe that voluntary association is impossible and evil, that nothing could be done without tyranny.

Yet your ideal tyranny is made up of ... individuals! Yes, when given the power to destroy, individuals in your fantasy world suddenly become all-knowing, wise and virtuous.

"Did you drive to work today on a road you buildt [sic] for yourself?" This is insane. Is your education so defunct that you believe that this is freedom? Pull your head out!

If any of your absurd arguments had any validity AT ALL, the Soviet Union would have been a raging success and the USA would have been nothing but a pile of mud.

Most individuals can take care of themselves. They can do so without your police state. Obviously you cannot.

Most individuals could not afford to build their own roads. Most individuals with an education got it from a school. These things require governments - the kinds of governments that require taxes and don't just fund the military and police.

If the Soviet Union could afford roads and the U.S. couldn't the U.S. would NOT be very successful, would it.

Right now, the anti-tax rhetoric by people like you is forcing our country to get by with roads and bridges built by previous generations that actually loved our country.

If you're on an "unregulated" bridge and it collapses, tell your corpse to pull itself up by its bootstraps.

Most individuals could not afford to build their own roads. Most individuals with an education got it from a school. These things require governments - the kinds of governments that require taxes and don't just fund the military and police.

If the Soviet Union could afford roads and the U.S. couldn't the U.S. would NOT be very successful, would it.

What do you mean 'IF?' I KNOW there are roads in Russia, just as there are in the US, so this point is moot.

Right now, the anti-tax rhetoric by people like you is forcing our country to get by with roads and bridges built by previous generations that actually loved our country. Yes, they were built by people that loved our country; and they are maintained by tax revenue generated by people that actually USE those roads in the form of license fees, gas taxes, etc. We don't need any additional taxes to maintain our roads and bridges.

If you're on an "unregulated" bridge and it collapses, tell your corpse to pull itself up by its bootstraps. Where does one find an 'unregulated' anything??? If this fabled 'unregulated bridge' even exists, I want to live on it.

Did you drive to work today on a road you built yourself? I tried to drive on the dirt beneath the road, but was unsuccessful. When I drove off-road, the police told me I HAD to use the road--not my decision.

Do you drink safe drinking water? I try, but the water dept said it was above recommended guidelines in fluoride, so I drink it out of a bottle now that I pay extra for since I already pay for my tainted water at home.

Did I go to school? YEP--been there, done that! Grad HS 1987, college 1997 (and STILL paying off those student loans) don't even get me started on how our govt screwed us all on that!

Do you work for a co. that has rec'd no help from the fed govt? Do those even exist now? BTW: Ron Paul refused to take taxpayer funds as pmt for his medical services while practicing.

Does you car come with a safety belt? Try finding one that doesn't!! Ahh...remember the good old days when you could decide for yourself if you wanted to be strapped to your seat and potentially burn to death in an accident, or take your chances? Thank you for protecting me... FROM MYSELF!

Does the bank still have my savings? They better! Didn't the govt steal my tax dollars to make sure the banks were brimming with worthless fiat paper?

Who would you call if your house was burning down? My local VOLUNTEER firemen. Remember--charity starts AT HOME--not through forced 'donations.'

All of the points you attempted to make are issues that would be better handled on a state or local level. Why are you fighting so hard to give your local authority to the feds? Oh, that's right...because they're so good at "regulating" everything like social security, war, and welfarism.

"The only thing Ron Paul is is Anti-Large Government. He is for everyone making their own choices"

The problem with that statement is that the size of our government is a direct result to people making choices about our government. To arbitrarily "shrink" the government would be to take away the right of voters to make their own decisions.

"The only thing Ron Paul is is Anti-Large Government. He is for everyone making their own choices"

The problem with that statement is that the size of our government is a direct result to people making choices about our government. To arbitrarily "shrink" the government would be to take away the right of voters to make their own decisions.

Libertarianism is, at heart, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.

Democracy is, as you have so unconsciously alluded, the "right of the voters" to take away the choices, even the life, of the individual.

The choice to destroy choice - not a new concept, one that's been proposed by many a hater of human beings.

The choice to destroy choice - after that does anyone get the choice to reinstate his choices?

Perfect example was the fate of the "Father of Democracy", Socrates, who was literally voted to death.

You show me where it says America is a democracy in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist papers, and not only will I lick your boots, I'll run right over and register as a democrat!

In the meantime, it is 'to the Republic for which I stand.'

Democracy = mob ruleRepublic = the rule of law applies equally to EVERYONE

Well, we could start by removing ALL the people that were NOT ELECTED into their current govt positions...

Did you feel that? It's the tax burden of paying for all of Oblamers czars being lifted off our shoulders! It's the freedom of not being part of the UN, where we have NO elected officials to represent us. It's the lifting up of the dead-weight of beaureaucrats and red-tape that we've been buried under! YAY! I'm starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel!

The reason Ron Paul interests progressives is because unlike Corporate Lite Obama, the elder Paul forthrightly speaks out against the "militarism" and "corporatism" that is destroying the American Dream and justice in our society.

All of this may be true about Ron Paul, but still he is the least evil of the entire crew on both the republican and democratic tickets. At least he is against war and overthrowing the governments of sovereign nations. At least he is against the FED. I'm far more scared of Gingrich, Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Romney than I am of Paul. He may be anti-gay and anti-women, but there is little he can do about them. Women and gays are here to stay.

If Paul were elected and he just got the wars stopped and US bases all over the world closed, he's be the greatest president in the last 100 years. But that is too big on an "if." No president runs US foreign or domestic policy. Presidents are just sock puppets. Like Obama, they get to pose for the cameras and be seen in a lot of presidential poses. But the are powerless and really keep in the dark about most of what is done by the USG. The real power is in the Pentagon, CIA, and corporate headquarders. They tell the president what to do, say, and think.

We are currently spending $2 billion dollars a week on our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A lot of that money is going into the pockets of corrupt politicians in those countries. We have no clear cut objective in either country and yet the wars grind on. We cannot begin to heal our own problems in this country until we withdraw, and yet only one potential candidate is talking about ending the wars. I think Obama has lost all credibility on this issue and is heading down the same destructive path as Lyndon Johnson. I will vote for anyone who promises to bring the troops home now--and if that comes with some other horrible attributes, well, I'll just hope that a strong Democratic congress can reign the President in. 69% of the public wants the troops to come home--let's get it done.

Americans do not want a government-run health care system. People understand that a more wide-open market for health care providers, keeping each other honest by providing competition, and making care more affordable via choice, is better than increasing the government control that is already making health care unaffordable for many.

I'm not refering to "Americans" or "people". I'm refering to a large MAJORITY of American people. Sorry if you disagree with the majority. paul could help you out there, because he's not a big fan of democracy.

Social Security is theft by forcing people into a plan they may not see as viable.

Is single-payer murder? Not the question I was asking. Democracy is MOB RULE, NO PRINCIPLES, MAJORITY WILL OVER RIGHTS, NO RIGHTS TO BE CONSIDERED, ONLY THE MAJORITY VOTE.

Clearly, democracy claims the right to murder any individual. Just vote on it. In fact, not that you would have any awareness at all, but the "Father of Democracy", Socrates, DIED by honoring the WILL OF THE MAJORITY that he die by drinking hemlock.

Got that? THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN A DEMOCRACY.

Back to your silly question. Is single-payer murder? Since collectivized ANYTHING does not work, single-payer is at least a death sentence. But you're not concerned about that - you just want a free ride.

But you, whose idea of choice is the destruction of the choices of all other people, will get no choice in the destination of your free ride - the morgue.

OK, now you've really done your research. Let's see now, use that technique learned back in the public indoctrination centers, where was it, oh, here it is: If (A equals A) doesn't suit your agenda, then just proclaim that (A does not equal A).

Problem here is that 71% of the people do not want Obamacare or any other form of government control over healthcare.

Of course maybe when you read that 71% of the people did not want Obamacare, you assumed that instead they wanted single payer, because that apparently is the only other possibility you could possibly conceive of. That's another stunt of the propaganda machine that you follow slavishly: limit all choices to false dichotomies.

No, actually I read that 71% wanted single-payer and over 80% atleast wanted the public option. Every survey I read that wasn't done by the insurance industry or conservative sources like fox and rasmussen found that no more than 30% wanted government out of healthcare.

The "propaganda machine" I follow is what the majority of American citizens want.

You've made it perfectly clear that you're don't care what the majority wants. You and paul are clearly on the same page. Are you on the same payroll?

Might as well just call him the white supremacist he is. Wonder why neo nazi, white supremacist organizations donated so much to his last run for President? His bigoted philosophy lines up nicely with the most virulent racists in the country. Lazy lefties apparently can only focus on one facet of this dangerous guy at a time. Too bad few were on to him years ago as his inroads are troubling. But, hey, not nearly enough progressives have done the deep work required to dismantle racism, sexism and classism, so we have more hurdles than ever to overcome.

Swaneagle -- all the presidents we've had except for Obama have been white supremacists and racists. Johnson was the closest to being a decent human. Obama is an enabler of white supremacists. All the other republican candidates are worse racists than Paul.

We are not going to get anyone as president who opposes the US system of racial discrimination, just as we are not going to get anyone who values something in life other than money. Get over it. Paul has one or two good qualities. No other candidate has any good qualities.

Might as well just call him the white supremacist he is. Wonder why neo nazi, white supremacist organizations donated so much to his last run for President? His bigoted philosophy lines up nicely with the most virulent racists in the country. Lazy lefties apparently can only focus on one facet of this dangerous guy at a time. Too bad few were on to him years ago as his inroads are troubling. But, hey, not nearly enough progressives have done the deep work required to dismantle racism, sexism and classism, so we have more hurdles than ever to overcome.

You haven't done any work at all. If you did, you would know that everything that Paul stands for is the opposite of the labels you so casually pin on him. Nazism, racism, are COLLECTIVIST ideas. Ron Paul is about Individual Rights, the opposite of collectivism.

Just take comfort in the thoughts that as a collectivist who likes to be surrounded with lots of company of other sweaty, non-hygienic nondescript collectivists, that you have lots of company: Democrats, RINOs, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, racists. Yes! Collectivists just like you! What a warm and fuzzy feeling that must be for you!

Seriously, the sheer amount of monsters in your closet and invisible boogie-men floating around your head must horrible to live with.

Don't look now, but there's another invisible black U.N. helicopter flying around your bed! Duck or it will zap you with it's collectivist ray and turn you into a U.S. citizen, rather than a cave dwelling "survivalist"!

You might as well stop wasting your time with billy bob...apparently, truth and common-sense are not the proper antidotes to whatever poison is in his Kool-Aid.

It was a noble effort that you gave...I enjoyed reading your posts. It is a pleasure to stumble across a fellow patriot that gets it.

Just remember that for every 'billy bob' out there, there are 100 of us educating, informing, and promoting the ideas of individual liberty to others. Someday soon, billy bob will get a taste of his own medicine. The individuals for Ron Paul WILL BE the majority and he will have to figure out how to eat crow without Big Brother there to spoon-feed him...now THAT is poetic justice.

Keep fighting the fight Get Real...the survival of our Republic depends on it!

A friend insisted a while back that Paul claimed to be the only congressman who voted agaisnt the Iraq War. NOT! It was Democrat Barbara Lee from California.Geez! These people have no respect for any of us. Hey, middle class Americans who vote Republican/tea/or for the likes of Paul are Chickens for Col. Sanders.

A friend insisted a while back that Paul claimed to be the only congressman who voted agaisnt the Iraq War. NOT! It was Democrat Barbara Lee from California.Geez! These people have no respect for any of us. Hey, middle class Americans who vote Republican/tea/or for the likes of Paul are Chickens for Col. Sanders.

Sorry, Paul voted against funding for the Iraq War. He also moved to have a vote on a legitimate Constitutional declaration of War, and got little support.

I know that Barbara Lee was the only to not give bush a blank check to "use force".

The fact that your side of the argument said paul was against funding the resulting war effort didn't need to be checked. I assumed that you wouldn't be lying about your own candidate, especially in such an unflattering light.

No, I'm saying you failed to parse the most basic gist from my statement. Let me spell it out for you:

The original poster stated that Lee was alone in opposing the Iraq war. This is false. Paul voted AGAINST H.J.Res. 114 authorizing military aggression against Iraq.

H.J.RES.64 was an authorization for the use of military force against the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks -- which Paul voted for, along with the entire House of Representatives, except for Barbara Lee.

This had nothing to do with war in Iraq.

Incidentally, I don't know that Lee's lone vote on the use of force against Al Qaeda is particularly flattering. Maybe she was among those who felt those people in the towers deserved it?

The resolution to use force was a blank check for bush to use force any way he saw fit. That ALWAYS included Iraq.

It was called, "Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals"

That was already being used as a pretext to invade anyone bush saw fit to invade. Barbara Lee could see this. paul could too AND AGREED WITH IT.

That IS VERY FLATTERING that Barbara Lee could see the whole script of the fake "war on terror" playing out exactly as it did.

It isn't very flattering to paul, that he either "didn't know" what bush was up to, or agreed with it.

The first bill already made the second one redundant, as the original pretext for the Iraq colonization was 9-11, as much of a lie as that is.

Ron Paul is an honest man. Agree with him or not, at least you will get no lies or false promises. His opinions are his own and he imposes them on no one. I seems that far too many vote on promises that cannot be kept for they often are not constitutional. Ron Paul has the ability to steer our government and our country back onto the right track. I am not saying he can do it all, but he CAN (and already has) lead the way. There are no contradictions or skeletons with Ron Paul. His consistency is proven. But I am afraid our "corporatocracy" will not allow Ron Paul the opportunity - for they will be the among the first to see their gravy trail diminish, and this alone is what has, is and probably always will kill what could have been a country to admire and be proud of. Ron Paul is the goose that laid the Golden Egg of hope. It will take more than Ron Paul to get this country back on track even if he could win. So be one of those who spreads the word and COUNTS the votes. Remember Ohio and Florida and do not allow it to happen again.

By "aggression" of course you're refering to taxes for the rich, and safety and public health regulations for large corporations.

I guess I WANT our government to pursue BOTH of those things aggressively.

Get this. The rich write the rules. The rich will therefore never pay any taxes. When you scream to soak the rich, the result is that the middle class, who carries your lazy putard on their backs, get clobbered AGAIN.

But hey, once having approved of the principle of theft by class warfare, you have approved it when you get ripped off. And you therefore deserve it.

except for the contradiction of pretending to give the right to make their own decisions while denying them the right to form a government that fits their priorities.

You do not have the right to impose your filthy tyranny on me. Get that straight.

Now if you want to live in a tyranny, there are many different flavors available - so move to one.

Your comments have gotten to a point where it is clear that you have no lofty goals, you simply want to destroy everyone elses' lives. Why not do it honestly as an outright criminal, instead of hiding behind legalized tyranny? What? You would have to face the possible consequences directly in a fight of your making?

and we know why Atlas shrugged. He didn't give a tinker's damn about anyone but himself. People live in groups. It is in our best interests to make sure we all do well. Diseases like drug resistant TB do not care if you are rich or poor, insured or uninsured. It behooves us to treat everyone with the disease and that takes an organized effort and yes the dreaded taxes. I can't live well if I am surrounded by poverty and ignorance. The real Any Rand model of government is alive and well in Somalia. Too nasty. brutal and short for me but for those who see democracy as tyranny just hop on the next plane out of here.

Diane - And why should poor people who live in non-flooding areas be forced to pay, via government, to help wealthier people living by the seaside?

John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 (now on Fox Business) had a terrific show about this.

Accusing libertarians of not caring about people, simply because they do not believe in BIG GOVERNMENT solutions, and understand that these solutions hurt people more than help them in the long run, is one of the oldest, most threadbare smears in the book.

Do you think all of those people in New Orleans who packed the stadium were wealthy people living by the seaside?In the case of Katrina, Bush's FEMA failed miserably. But the FEMA of today is run by competent people. According to you, you're on your own if a hurricane, earthquake, tornado or any other natural disaster occurs. How sad.

Ron paul, as a "libertarian" does not believe the government has the authority to intervene in the economic crisis, regulate banking, or even operate a sovereign national banking system. Yet he says he wants to eliminate the fed. This makes him either a fool or a traitor or both.

Ron paul, as a "libertarian" does not believe the government has the authority to intervene in the economic crisis, regulate banking, or even operate a sovereign national banking system. Yet he says he wants to eliminate the fed. This makes him either a fool or a traitor or both.

Do you even know what the fed is?

Your comment here has reached the very bottom of incomprehensibility. No surprise, you're a "progressive", golly you'd do anything to fit in with those who imply the others (who carry the "progressives" on their backs) are regressive.

It's obvious that many true "progressives" and conservatives ARE considering supporting Ron Paul. We already got a 3rd term of Bush with Obama and no one is challenging Obama. So why would anyone want a 4th term of Bush-Obama? If there is a better option, Adele Stan does not say what it is.

Hitler felt much the same as you do about democracy. He felt he knew what was best for Germany regardless of what the majority may have wanted if given a choice. He felt he was restoring the country to its glorious past. The very first people he went after, before the Jews, were the communists.

Coleen -- yes, you are right. I'm a progressive or really a peace activist left winger and I'll vote for Paul over Obama if Paul is nominated. He's always been very clear about his anti war position and that is good enough to be president.

Paul has a very unique opportunity to lead a 3rd party to the white house. He'll never get the republican nomination because the republican primaries are controlled by Fox News. They want one of their own nominated. If Paul runs on a 3rd party, he'll get a lot of the independent, libertarian, tea party, progressive, anarchist, and peace activist vote. All a 3rd party candidate will need to win in 34% in a 3 way race (assuming the other two split the rest evenly). That is very possible. If Paul chose a VP designed to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population, he would probably win. A coalition of prograssives, teapartiers, independent, libertarians -- who really do share a lot of issues -- who scare the beeejesus out of the ruling elites at the Pentagon and Wall Street who have been able via the two main parties to control the government for 150 years.

The problem is that paul won't be running on a 3rd party ticket, because he's a Teapartying repugnican.

If paul chose a VP to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population he wouldn't be paul and we'd be living in another universe. His stance is very clear. He supports the tea-party 100% and they feel the same about him.

I wonder how much he really plans to cut the military and security agencies if elected with all that money he'll be saving by killing NPR and the USDA.

...that's not really true--you need to look a bit deeper if you want to know the reality, as opposed to the sound-bite.

Paul supports the Constitution. To the extent that the Tea Party does the same, they're in accord. But while the Tea Party have a libertarian wing with which Paul is in sympathy, they also have a more "conventional," more imperialist wing, with which Paul's views not in any special accord.

The problem is that paul won't be running on a 3rd party ticket, because he's a Teapartying repugnican.

If paul chose a VP to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population he wouldn't be paul and we'd be living in another universe. His stance is very clear. He supports the tea-party 100% and they feel the same about him.

I wonder how much he really plans to cut the military and security agencies if elected with all that money he'll be saving by killing NPR and the USDA.

So much for the idea that you have any clue whatsoever.

Let me give you a hint: You have no clue what you are talking about. You simply hate the hand that feeds you. There now, go back into your little collectivist cage.

It's so obvious the ruling elites are afraid of the consensus of people that oppose the wars and the financial frauds and who want a return to the Constitution and rule of law. The two parties serve to divide the consensus and you can see that in many of these rather uninformed comments.

Here's a good article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-challenge-to-the-left/

Coleen -- yes, you are right. I'm a progressive or really a peace activist left winger and I'll vote for Paul over Obama if Paul is nominated. He's always been very clear about his anti war position and that is good enough to be president.

Paul has a very unique opportunity to lead a 3rd party to the white house. He'll never get the republican nomination because the republican primaries are controlled by Fox News. They want one of their own nominated. If Paul runs on a 3rd party, he'll get a lot of the independent, libertarian, tea party, progressive, anarchist, and peace activist vote. All a 3rd party candidate will need to win in 34% in a 3 way race (assuming the other two split the rest evenly). That is very possible. If Paul chose a VP designed to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population, he would probably win. A coalition of prograssives, teapartiers, independent, libertarians -- who really do share a lot of issues -- who scare the beeejesus out of the ruling elites at the Pentagon and Wall Street who have been able via the two main parties to control the government for 150 years.

Kucinich supports Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, the USDA, the FAA, public broadcasting, public roads, public parks, public libraries, and the EPA.

paul is ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to the VERY existence of any of those things.

paul / gingrich would be a lot more likely.

No chance, and this shows again that you have no clue. Gingrich is an insider along with the Dems and RINOs. He IS a RINO.

Sorry, I know this is too complicated for you, but let me explain: Ron Paul is a libertarian/constitutional conservative true Republican. RINO is not Republican, but calls itself that. It means Republican In Name Only - get it? Not a Republican, but pretends to be? Got that?

Coleen -- yes, you are right. I'm a progressive or really a peace activist left winger and I'll vote for Paul over Obama if Paul is nominated. He's always been very clear about his anti war position and that is good enough to be president.

Paul has a very unique opportunity to lead a 3rd party to the white house. He'll never get the republican nomination because the republican primaries are controlled by Fox News. They want one of their own nominated. If Paul runs on a 3rd party, he'll get a lot of the independent, libertarian, tea party, progressive, anarchist, and peace activist vote. All a 3rd party candidate will need to win in 34% in a 3 way race (assuming the other two split the rest evenly). That is very possible. If Paul chose a VP designed to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population, he would probably win. A coalition of prograssives, teapartiers, independent, libertarians -- who really do share a lot of issues -- who scare the beeejesus out of the ruling elites at the Pentagon and Wall Street who have been able via the two main parties to control the government for 150 years.

PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!!!!!

I like Kucinich's being against the Fed. I like his gutsiness. Other than that he opposes everything that Paul stands for. Socialism is not in the Constitution.

Ms Stan does not give an accurate picture of Ron Paul's commitment to peace. He is challenging the paradigm of the military-industrial complex and progressives should applaud him for doing so and seek ways to cooperate on those issues as progressive members of Congress have already. Here is a Youtube clip of Ron Paul's antiwar statements in the last Republican Presidential debate. If you haven't seen it, take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvVYyUVSHms

Where oh where is there any good out there at all??. No there is none for they are all liar's who care nothing about no one but them self and lining there pockett with green backs. I see nothing out there at all, Nothing.

I first heard of Ron Paul regarding his sponsorship of a bill to allow the growing of industrial hemp. That would definitely gain him some progressive votes. I certainly have a problem with many of Ron Paul's views, but I also can't help but think that unless we reign in the military-industrial complex, there is not much point in doing anything else. In a speech that he made on January 21, 2010, he called for the dissolution of the CIA, accusing it of "thousands of illegal and immoral acts around the world, including almost unfathomable mass murder and countless acts of terrorism and torture." How many other politicians put it that bluntly?

What we have here is a very bad piece of journalism by a woman who has gone off half-cocked into territory where she is completely lost. So she has determined Paul is "racist," anti--female, and a lot of other bad things. That she includes in this catalogue of errors -- if true -- the idea that Paul is against the annual Bohemian Grove debacle, against Skull and Bones, and against Aipac tells me, at the least, that she is a nitwit. I mean, are we all to honor the guys-only California house-party where, amid an annual juvenile bad-boys Saturnalia, too much of American governmental policy is decided? Must we look with reverence upon the rich-boys' vulgar fraternity where G.W. Bush found his great depth, and cherish the fervent right-wing Israeli lobby that loves us -- so long as Americans provide unlimited weapons for their bully-brigades? It looks like she never interviewed Paul -- I have. And while some of his stands are far from my own, he strikes me as honest, and sometimes even wise -- a far cry above the rest of the pack. Before we judge, let us read elsewhere, please!

Dr. Paul's consistent direction and motivation is liberty. I met him in 1988 when he was running for president then as a libertarian candidate.

One might look into the latin derivation of liberty and see how the term liberal has the latin word liber,(free)and is common to the derivation of both words liberty and liberal. I consider myself a classical liberal a lover of freedom and liberty. Ron Paul is also a lover of freedom and liberty.

Just don't assume you'll have the freedom to support the EPA, or Social Security, or the USDA, or attend public schools, or public libraries, or public roads, or public parks, or a drink from a public water supply.

"Freedom" as he defines it, is the freedom of those in power to weild that power any way they see fit, and the freedom of those very people to make damn sure you don't stand in their way by trying to regulate them.

Billy Bob - It's about whether you believe in letting people make their own choices, or whether you want government to choose for them.

Ron Paul is trying to give us a more harmonious society based on bottom-up individual choice, not on top-down government coercion and control. That top-down model always ends up benefitting the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized, even when it is *advertised* as doing exactly the opposite. A lie that unfortunately many people have bought into!

When do YOU think it is okay for government to commit aggression (i.e. initiate force or fraud) against people in the name of the majority?

No amount of "choosing" to save more than you make will cause it to happen. Whether you like it or not, the average cost of retirement NOT including healthcare will be about 2 million dollars by 2040. If you are saving enough to deal with that, then I guess you made the right choice by making enough to set aside over $1,000 a week starting right now. Otherwise, the "harmonious" rhetoric is running up against a disharmonious brick wall called "MATH".

"Top down" government is bad, but "top-down" economics are ok, right?

I have NO vote in how Goldman Sachs or Wal-Mart conduct their business. THAT is paul's top-down economy with ZERO accountability to the very "big" government that allows you to drink water without getting dysentery. You can "choose" to drink clean water all you like, but unless a government regulates the source of the water, you'd be better off just PRAYING it will be clean. You can't boil out lead.

No amount of "choosing" to save more than you make will cause it to happen. Whether you like it or not, the average cost of retirement NOT including healthcare will be about 2 million dollars by 2040. If you are saving enough to deal with that, then I guess you made the right choice by making enough to set aside over $1,000 a week starting right now. Otherwise, the "harmonious" rhetoric is running up against a disharmonious brick wall called "MATH".

"Top down" government is bad, but "top-down" economics are ok, right?

I have NO vote in how Goldman Sachs or Wal-Mart conduct their business. THAT is paul's top-down economy with ZERO accountability to the very "big" government that allows you to drink water without getting dysentery. You can "choose" to drink clean water all you like, but unless a government regulates the source of the water, you'd be better off just PRAYING it will be clean. You can't boil out lead.

True only if you have bought the absurd theories of Marx and Keynes. But you accepted them as fact, without a clue of what they meant or where they came from or what their purpose might be.

Hint: Big government IS the problem. But you accepted the absurd notions of Marx. Oh, BTW, your pro big govt beliefs would get a nod of approval from Hitler, too. Isn't that exciting!

Now, what's your factual argument against what I said? A little substance would be nice. You've made about 20 comments already and ALL of them have been nothing more than pre-adolescent youtube insults.

"Freedom" as he defines it, is the freedom of those in power to weild that power any way they see fit, and the freedom of those very people to make damn sure you don't stand in their way by trying to regulate them.

Now you have gone off into outright lying.

'"Freedom" as he defines it ...' is none of the lies you flush upon us. Freedom, as Ron Paul defines it is about the Individual, not the collective, and legally it comes from the Constitution. But you never read, much less understood, the Constitution.

Somehow in your tiny twisted ?brain?, freedom is, as you define it, the right of the MAJORITY to impose its will upon individuals. You have said this.

If you knew the first thing about Ron Paul, you would know that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate (D, R) who opposes the power wielded by the establishment. And that power, as you have pointed out in your other bizarre posts, was provided by MAJORITY vote.

Somehow you don't get that the mercantilists are given the power, by the establishment politicians, as a result of MAJORITY vote, and deception as confused as your views.

Your socialist dream is exactly the crony pseudo-capitalism you pretend to condemn.

Just don't assume you'll have the freedom to support the EPA, or Social Security, or the USDA, or attend public schools, or public libraries, or public roads, or public parks, or a drink from a public water supply.

Or the freedom to be reamed out by taxes, or the freedom to have your business shut down arbitrarily, or the freedom to be groped at an airport, or the freedom to have a SWAT team descend upon your home (or in your case, your mammaw's basement) without warrant or cause.

At least pay attention to who you're arguing with before you make your comments. It wasn't liberal "collectivist" "socialist" policy to grope people in airports. If you'd followed the threads on this web site before appearing out of the woodwork to defend paul you'd know that.

"getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing the Patriot Act"this is 99% of the USA crisis/problem.Article is poor propaganda - out of context - like (Adele M. Stan: nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you, blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)EXTREMELY POOR JOURNALISM

I totally agree with the Extremely Poor Journalism point.However, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and the Patriot Act, while outrageous abuses of the public trust, are merely symptoms of a much deeper endemic problem - The adolescence of humanity. We are too easily influenced and controlled by those who have no compunction to do so for their own selfish reasons.The most meaningful political distinction is not what most people think. It is not left or right, conservative or liberal, D or R, black or white, the only truly significant distinction is between those who wish to control others, and those who have no such interest, to roughly quote Robert Heinlein.Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the foundational aspiration of the founding of our nation, is very difficult to pursue under the oppressive influence of our current financial aristocracy.We no longer have a Republic, because we failed to keep it, as Ben Franklin tried to warn us. We have a democracy - tyranny of the masses, who are easily influenced, distracted, divided, and controlled.

"- tyranny of the masses, who are easily influenced, distracted, divided, and controlled"it seems that everything is Controlled by the Money/Militaristic Culture - common to both parties and White House.

as a progressive in texas i have watched ron paul for many years with interest. While i dislike some of his positions, this article is a complete smear job. It uses statements from his staff that he has disavowed (and fired people over)and associations to smear his beliefs and positions. Paul if actually elected would have the power to change much of what is wrong with america but would not without a majority of congress agreement be able to impose some of his more questionable beliefs. Mostly I am offended that RSN would publish such a propaganda piece as this.

This article is the worst kind of yellow "journalism." Ron Paul doesn't have a prejudiced bone in his body, as anyone who's ever heard him or met him knows perfectly well.

I don't agree with every position Ron Paul takes, but his crusade is for _equality_ for _everyone_, not special privileges for arbitrary groups, which creates ugly and acrimonious competition for stolen table-scraps.

Ron Paul is the very definition of progressive. The author of this article is the very definition of dishonest.

That's it? I knew I loved this guy - now I know why! We've allowed the central government to run roughshod over the people and the Constitution and it's time to get back to some State's control! I LOVE this guy!!

Ron Paul’s popularity is so high among U.S. service members that the Texas Congressman’s presidential campaign has received more money from U.S. soldiers than any other candidate in the 2012 presidential race. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/...

He voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward withan undeclared war.“Let it not be said that no one cared, thatno one objected once it´s realized that our liberty and wealth are inJeopardy” July 10th, 2003

He voted against the unconstitutional and un-patriotic misnomered so called “Patriot Act”.

Ron Paul’s popularity is so high among U.S. service members that the Texas Congressman’s presidential campaign has received more money from U.S. soldiers than any other candidate in the 2012 presidential race. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/...

He voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward withan undeclared war.“Let it not be said that no one cared, thatno one objected once it´s realized that our liberty and wealth are inJeopardy” July 10th, 2003

He voted against the unconstitutional and un-patriotic misnomered so called “Patriot Act”.

He supports a non-interventionist foreign policy yet a strong defense

He will end the inflation tax

He is a true Classical Liberal

Because a true Classical Liberal and the original Conservative were hard to distinguish from a true libertarian. By now 2 have been co-opted, Classical Liberal by "progressive", original Conservative by "neo-con", and libertarian is starting to morph also.

He would have soundly beat Obama in 2008 because Independents trust him and like him.

We could have had a V8 instead of McCain´t or Obomb-a in 08

Ron Paul for President 2012

Because no one else can be trusted to say what he means and do what he says like Ron Paul does.

Ron Paul is the man of the hour. They used to laugh him for being way aheadof the others in his thinking and his warnings. Now, they are not laughing because what he predicted is coming to pass. Now, he is being calleda prophet for having warned us and still calmly suffered through thebarbs. "First they, ignore you, then they fight you, then you

Wow, Activista -- I think you've got it -- our "journalist" is pimping for the radical Israeli right -- a bunch that makes the tea party look like an Our Gang comedy. All those eye-catching accusations -- Paul hates women and gays, Paul is racist, everything but Paul bites the heads off kittens -- are just the powder fueling her REAL blast --Paul is no friend of AIPAC! Neither, by the way, are a LOT of Israelis. (For the truth on that, Google Jewish Voice For Peace.)Anyway, thanks for this insight. Couldn't figure Adele's vituperative "thing." Dismaying for sure, that most of the Paul-haters in these posts seem to have learned all they know from her disgusting rant. The awful power of reckless press!

Having hurled their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity and foreign aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next big issue to be refuted...individual liberties. Of course they don't often mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived heart of the issue...heroin. Ron Paul wants to "legalize heroin" is touted gleefully to choruses of "and prostitution!" A round of smirks is the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed, drug abusing prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers' heads and scare them out of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate for anything, much less republican party nominee. A thinking person might wonder why the fascination and focus on heroin, other than for the shock value of course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned. "Protecting individual liberty," Ron Paul often explains, "is the purpose of all government. Individual liberty is the right to your life, the right to your property and the right to keep the fruits of your labor." With those two simple sentences and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually mean in regards to federal government overreach, almost everything that the status quo fights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it any wonder the most inflammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity to derail the very idea? - Susan Westfall

With decades of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all in Washington that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money, power or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply...not for sale. Lobbyists for special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is such an undisputed reality that they don't even darken the door of his congressional office. His opinion can not be leased by the highest bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion. He is a man who stands his ground, refusing to back down, flip-flop, or play the political game of corporate footsie that entangles so many on the Hill. This is the kind of strength America not just needs, but deep down hungers for in a president. America does not need a president with the strength to circumvent law by executive order, ignore Congress and engage in needless conflicts, or break international and common law to achieve a victory. Those who stand to lose the most under a president who would not compromise the peoples' liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law for any reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul.- Susan Westfall

Forget about everything else-- this person said that AMERICAN DOES NOT NEED FEMA. So we "did not need" all the preparation that could ONLY have been created and coordinated by federal government? That's it. That's enough to not vote for him. I beg everyone to not vote for him. I beg on bended knee. We have got to learn something from this latest disaster-- the only reason America was ready for it was because of this preparation. There is no way in the world that we will be so lucky and dodge the bullet next time (and who knows-- maybe we still won't because of flooding.) Can't we learn any kind of lesson?

After reading ALL of these comments, I get the feeling that something is being missed. WHAT A PERSON SAYS AND WHAT A PERSON DOES WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GET INTO THE WH CAN BE 180 DEGREES OUT. Look what Obama said during the 2008 campaign and LOOK what he has or hasn't done! SEE WHAT I MEAN? So, Ron Paul says this and he says that----what would he actually do if Prez? EXAMLE: If he gets rid of the IRS, how will he collect taxes to pay for running the government? I don't think he's calling for a dissolution of the military! So, where is the tax money going to come from to pay for a military? As a disabled Vietnam war vet, I'm extremely pleased with his stance on Iraq-Afghanistan, BUT I was extremely pleased with Obama's stance AND LOOK WHAT DID and DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! Our troops are still being slaughtered on a daily basis. And, civilians are being killed and injured. You can tell that Obama never read "The Art of War" by Sun Zhu or he read it and the MIC told him to forget it (MIC = war = $$$$$$.) Bottom line on RP---his close association with the Birchers / reconstructionists-religious fanatics is extremely troubling. He'd never get my vote. AND, notice how you never hear anything about Rand---seems to have gone the way of Stoopid Sarah.

Actually, North Korea is a country ruled by a philosophy that is so rigid that it refuses to accept the wishes or needs of the majority of its citizens. Rather than a democracy, it's a place where PURISTS don't allow democratic thinking that would get in the way of following that philosophy.

Sound familiar?

The philosophy is different from yours, but the methods used to enforce universal cooperation with that philosophy are the EXACT SAME.

Wrong. Dictatorship by communism is dictatorship. Dictatorship by MAJORITY is dictatorship. And the methods used to enforce universal cooperation in DEMOCRACY are the same as in any other tyranny.

My philosophy BANS the used of coercion, not only by private citizens, but by the government also. You MAJORITY MOB RULE cannot function without govt coercion to FORCE the will of the MAJORITY on people who simply choose to live their own lives without bothering anyone.

You have got it all twisted backwards.

What is it that you have against people who refuse to conform to your wishes?

Once again, THANK YOU for illustrating that so-called libertarianism is profoundly anti-democratic.

You are welcome, libertarianism is about the same exact ***rights*** for each person. This will NEVER produce the same results for each person, because we are all different, even you, you poor little thing you.

Democracy is mob rule, rule by MAJORITY, nothing more than a fancy word for yet another form of tyranny. Democracy hates allowing anyone to not conform, as your posts demonstrate.

The 2 could not be much different. I chose to live my life - you choose to destroy the lives of everyone. I choose Liberty, you chose one peculiar form of tyranny.

I'd like to quote Gooterama, who made a pertinent argument to the article about the GOP's debt solution to soak the poor:

"I've got a great idea...... all the folks who didn't like paying taxes, hated corporate regulations and personal restrictions, who liked carrying guns everywhere with impunity and favored imposing themselves onto the less fortunate; could go to their own personal Nirvana. Such a place already exists, it's called Somalia and there are lots of us who'd pony up for their one way fare to Mogadishu."

There is a huge difference between anarchy and Liberty. Somalia has no rule of law, it is anarchy fighting a imposed tyranny. Liberty is a legal structure that applies equally to each person. That, not tyranny, is the rule of law.

Tyranny, whether Marxism, Nazism, socialism or democracy, is rule by men not by law. So is anarchy.

Gooterama is an idiot.

Also, make a distinction between the RINO and the libertarian. The RINO is right there WITH YOU, wants all the same govt destuctions you want, just at a slower pace.

One side: Dems, RINOs, Nazis, Communists, socialist, anarchists, "democracy" advocates, YOU, etc, are all collectivists and work to destroy individualism.

Other side: libertarians of various stripes all support individual rights, which is the ONLY kind of rights there are. There are no "group rights" - this is an oxymoron.

In democracy, once people discover that they can vote themselves the public til, the outflow from the til steadily increases and the inflow to the til steadily decreases. In the resulting collapse, a tyranny always arises to "restore order and democracy[the original problem]". Democracy is a lame excuse typically masquerading as a form of freedom, in truth it is the gateway to tyranny.

Everybody go back and read comments by Peggy who hit the nail on the head. Ron Paul is the first politician who doesn't use "group" promotion, which if you study history, has been the downfall of every democracy since Athens.

why is it that people always choose to point out that he's against social security and the civil rights act and claim he's "anti-old people" and "anti-minority" and "anti-whatever else you choose to make him". That's ridiculous! Why not explain the fact that he believes he has better ideas to take care of the old people and make everyone have the same amount of freedom, etc?????? That's like me saying that because obama wants to tax the rich people that he hates white people.

When Social Security was begun, it only affected a very small portion of the populace. And people only had to pay a relatively small portion of their pay. Over the years it has ballooned in both scope and expense. It meets the definition of a Ponzi Scheme, and it is unsustainable.

People should control their own retirement savings and medical records, not be forced into government dependency that robs them of dignity and choice.

Billy Bob - Likewise, some of us who support Ron Paul would like to see how you some of you who attack him feel about Obama's record on things like Bradley Manning, Guantanamo, marijuana, bombings in Afghanistan, claiming the authority to execute people at will, and other civil liberties issues!

Anthony Gregory's article on civil liberties in Obama's America is a good place to start -- http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=711

And if you haven't heard about Obama's attempt to claim the power to execute people, including U.S. citizens, he suspects of being terrorists (this hasn't been real well publicized yet), check this piece from the ACLU:

If you've actually followed these articles and read RSN consistently you'd already KNOW how angry I am at Obama for being a trojan horse conservative.

I don't see how replacing him with ANOTHER conservative would fix this.

I'm being consistently against paul AND Obama. Are you consistently for paul AND perry or gingrich?

So called "social issues" are not the only ones on the table, and neither is the military. It's possible to disagree with conservative Democrats AND conservative repugnicans, while remaining a liberal. There is a KEY difference between liberals and paul. paul wants to end the ability of citizens to require our government to do exactly what we want, in favor of what he, personally sees as necessary. Naturally, millionaires like him have no problem saving enough money to live on after retirement. The other 99% of us will NOT be able to do that, no matter how much you think you're investing.

The math of making $40,000 a year while setting aside enough to live on $100,000 a year (due to inflation) in your old age just doesn't add up, no matter how much fairy dust you sprinkle on the calculator.

My problem with paul and his followers is essentially MATHEMATICAL in nature.

I'm being consistently against paul AND Obama. Are you consistently for paul AND perry or gingrich?

The math of making $40,000 a year while setting aside enough to live on $100,000 a year (due to inflation) in your old age just doesn't add up, no matter how much fairy dust you sprinkle on the calculator.

1) You lump paul and perry and newt together? Paul is a TRUE conservative, newt is a neo-con and perry is pretty damned close to being a progressive - perry was AL GORE's campaign manager in Texas in 2000. Newt and Perry are "establishment".

2) Obama a "conservative"? What the Hell are you talking about? Obama is such an Alinskyite it's unbelievable. He rammed Obamacare (SOCIALISM/MERCANTILISM CRONY PSEUDO-CAPITALISM!) thru Congress and when he cannot get it thru Congress, he dictates by executive order.

Obama is the IDEAL "progressive".

You really ought to redefine your entire lexicon, because you are a victim of the confusion of the governmental "education" standards you so swoon over.

As a bisexual who's met and spoken with Ron Paul, as well as listening and watching many of his interviews and debate appearances, I support him and do not think he is anti-queer. I trust him to protect my legitimate legal rights.

Although he himself has conservative views on things like abortion, and I doubt he would be comfortable partying at a Pride event, my gut sense is that Ron Paul truly believes in personal freedom and a live-and-let-live approach.

If you look at his record, you may notice that he has not tried to legislate his personal beliefs, only to uphold the Constitution and get government back in the hands of the people.

Yes he wants to phase out Medicare and Social Security, but to help the poor and the elderly, not to hurt them. By letting young people opt out of these unconstitutional government programs, while maintaining benefits for older people already in the system who are relying on those programs and could be in trouble without the assistance. Ultimately they are unsustainable, and honest people acknowledge this.

Working people, especially those who are lower income, should not have Social Security taxes withheld from their paychecks. The politicians have been spending that money as fast as it's come in, and the money they are forced to pay is NOT being set aside for them in their retirement. It's a scam.

"Paul's problem is that shared by isolationists generally - though while most isolationists don't understand the realities of foreign policy, I suspect Paul's motive is more along the lines of a libertarian disdain for government spending - even on defense. Nature abhors a vacuum and if we start pulling out everywhere, other, hostile elements will take our place, including China. Had we followed Paul's advice during the Cold War, the world would be Communist now. Indeed, even today isolationists like Paul and Buchanan want to concede East Asia to China. That's not going to happen though, thankfully. The Chinks won't be conceded an inch of territory."

Ron Paul’s comments on Libya make more sense than those on the Left claim.

You're free to take care of yourself. Our country would save a lot money if "freedom lovers" such as yourself would stop attending public schools, driving on public roads, using public sewer systems, calling public fire departments and police departments, and collecting Social Security.

You're free to take care of yourself. Our country would save a lot money if "freedom lovers" such as yourself would stop attending public schools, ... [blahblahblah].

No problem - now give us all back all of the tax money you have taken from us, without our consent and against our will.

And aren't you against the police, you condemn Ron Paul for saying that police (not the police state that your "democracy" will lead to) are one of the few legitimate govt functions?

Since you don't allow schools that don't suck the DOE indoctrination, why should we not use what our money paid for?

Sewers? Another govt created and enforced monopoly, the only kind that exists. All others are not allowed. In some areas septic is not allowed.

Etc. All your choices are phony. Now why don't you offer a real choice? Why don't we get rid of all the corporate welfare? Cuz your democrats get the bulk of their contributions and are their main support in Congress.

Why not get rid of all the various unconstitutional depts and bureaucracies? These are not only a waste but they stomp the productivity they feed from. This is what sends jobs to China.

How about closing 800 military bases in 130 other countries? Only Paul advocates this.

You'd rather have a septic system than a public sewer system? Have you thought this through? I lived in a neighborhood where septic systems were the only thing available. A few neighbors lost several thousand dollars cleaning up their back yards.

No one is stopping you from going to a private school if you can afford it. Talk about phony choices.

No one is against the existence of the police. Someone will need to police the hungry masses under your system of "liberty" without justice for all.

First thing, Adele should find out the truth rather than simply blast someone because someone else put a label on him. This is a classic example of collectivist "thinking", wherein people are grouped by some identifiable characteristic, then all members of that group deserve punishment as a group member per se, or deserve special privileges not available to non-members of the group.

The thing that is objectionable about racism, or hatred of LGBTs, etc, is exactly that these are a specific forms of collectivism. Note that Adele participates in class warfare, wherein she wants special privileges for certain groups, clearly the practice of collectivism; evidently she thinks that black people cannot fend for themselves without quotas.

Without understanding any of the issues, and no grasp of the facts about Ron Paul, all that Adele has done is engage in innuendo and name-calling.

All that Adele has done is too repeat the lies of people who wish to put us all into tyranny, and I give her the benefit of the doubt in that maybe she is a source. Adele is foolish to paint pictures without bothering to find out the facts, because the truth will win, and with it, the movement for Liberty inspired by Ron Paul.

Its so funny how progressive say anyone who stands against something they stand for are suddenly anti what ever and want to kill all the kids and old people.

Take the time to actually think through an issue rather than just looking at the surface and you will see that positions taken by progressives are usually the anti whatever positions.

It's time to treat the problems rather than the symptoms.

Ron Paul has the best interest of all people in mind, the interest of freedom to choose for yourself in life rather than slavery to a government that wants to tell everyone how to live from cradle to grave.

You "libertarians" have been so duped its scary. You have completely swallowed the bait that the facist, corporatist, nation raiders have dropped in the water for you. The free traders love and fund populist movements because they want people to buy into an ideology that says that governments have no means of protecting their citizenries from the "individual liberties" of global corporations, bankers, and other robbers and free trade enthusiasts. It is only by blind stupidity that you can believe that government is your enemy when corporations and banks are dictating government policy and leading us into the wars and financial ruin you claim to oppose. This "libertarian" faction is just like the wal_street funded liberty league of FDR's time. Phony grassroots, corporate dupes, rewriting American history in the service of your enemies who's version of politics is straight from the British imperial/East India Company model. We already fought our revolution aginst that system. Don't be fooled into giving our nation back to the tories. There is no "bigger government" than the supra_governmental/corporate one that is taking over your political institutions and using them for its own ends today.

I will say, however, that this article is crap. It is a smear campaign focused on red herring issues. Why waste time? Take an informed look at the lunacy of know-nothing, "libertarian", ideology and it discredits itself. Of course, the word "liberty" has always been used to confuse fools...

Mission accomplished - www.zerohedge.com/news/ron-paul-asks-if-libya-indeed-mission-accomplished"We already see grisly reprisals from the US-backed rebels against their political opponents. There are disturbing scenes of looting and lawlessness ...The tribal structure of Libyan society all but ensures that an ongoing civil war is on the agenda rather than the Swiss-style democracy that some intervention advocates suggest is around the corner.What is next after such a victory? With the big Western scramble to grab Libya's oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?NEO-conservatives continue to dominate our FOREIGN policy, regardless of the ADMINISTRATION in power. They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid. They have set their sights next on Syria, where the US moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the US. Already the US president has called for "regime change" in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime. Are US bombers far behind?"

Or perhaps they're trolls. That's usually the case when people come crawling out of nowhere to respond to one article and are never heard from again.

The style of the article that angered some was to use paul's own words and voluntary affiliations against him. This poses a problem for those who only want to look at the aspects of his persona they choose to see and ignore the other side of him. The warm fuzzy feelings go away in the light of day.

If he gets in the White House the other side of him will raise its ugly head, whether people choose to look at it or not.

I remember when mccain, bush jr., dole, bush sr., and reagan all presented themselves as "moderates" or "if anything, kind of left wing" just to get elected. Then, once people got wind...

With some of them, people didn't get wind until they were already in office. Learning the whole truth about a candidate is better NOW than after the election is over.

Or perhaps they're trolls. That's usually the case when people come crawling out of nowhere to respond to one article ....The style of the article that angered some was to use paul's OWN??? words and voluntary affiliations against him.

Adele: "the Paul agenda. (Tough on you, blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)"seems to me more like Adele/AIPAC propaganda than Paul's own word.

Adele Stan's hit piece is an example of how far liberals will go to twist Ron Paul's words into something ugly and unfair. Does she make ANY effort to show Paul's message is untruthful or irrelevant? Why does she support government ponzi schemes robbing people? Why is killing unborn babies so important to her? Honest money is not in her interest? I could go on and on...

His stance against the Fed outweighs all his crazy ideas about societal issues and the rest of society is so far beyond these that he would never be able to get a single one enacted. Getting rid of the FED, now THAT is something that would improve things. Also the IRS and implement a national consumption tax in place of the national production tax we now have (income tax).

1) Ron Paul is not anti-civil rights. There is a difference between civil rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the latter of which contains property rights violations that are unconstitutional, which is why he opposes it. He has said many times he would have voted against the Jim Crow laws.

2) Ron Paul is not anti-education. "Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children." Once again, a clear difference between anti-education and anti-public education.

3) Ron Paul is not anti-women. Ron Paul is anti-abortion. If that means Ron Paul is anti-women, then it's only fair to call everyone that's pro-choice: anti-children.

4) Ron Paul is not anti-gay. "Can gays be allowed to marry? The state says we believe in this?" Paul: "Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want, as long as they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me personally accept what they do but... gay couples can do whatever they want [...]"

5) Ron Paul is not anti-senior citizen. Ron Paul opposes social security because it's unconstitutional. He's said that he wouldn't get rid of it - he would make it solvent so they (politicians) can't spend the money (ss funds).

I don't care what his internal, personal motives are behind his refusal to accept people's right to tell our government how to work.

1) The slavery issue was about "property" rights as well. The property rights you're refering to are the rights of people to refuse service to blacks based on the color of their skin. To simply say that's about property rights is dishonest.

2) Nobody is really "anti-education" or they wouldn't pay so much sending their kids to expensve private schools. The trouble is that not everyone can afford that. paul is against PUBLIC education. He's not against you buying a solid gold house either. You don't need a solid gold house though.

3 & 4) paul is "anti-government intrusion into your life" - UNLESS IT'S A STATE GOVERNMENT for some reason.

5) Over 80% of seniors need their Social Security just to get by. In the future, that will increase, as the last generation to enjoy guaranteed pensions dies. If it's not "constitutional" to provide for the general welfare of U.S. citizens (look it up), I wonder if the tent cities, soup kitchens, and bread lines, of the future paul invisions will be

I'm glad he plans to keep his hands off of Social Security though, regardless of his personal denial of reality. If he wants to "make it solvent" we should pay back what was borrowed from it.

1) The property rights violation gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. On the contrary, if you think this is strictly limited to "refusing service to blacks", that's "dishonest". Maybe you could try reading it first before you make completely inaccurate statements.

2) Ron Paul NEVER said he would dismantle the public schooling system so I have no idea why you're implying he wants to "force" people to make their children go to private schools. What are you talking about? "I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system"

1) Your argument was used by white seperatists and pro-segregation proponents during the whole civil rights movement.

2) Writing off homeschooling and private schooling is a great way to divert funding from public education. Money is being taken away from public schools, whether you can accept reality or not. paul is at the forefront of that movement.

3) Wrong again. All these naive assumptions with no truth are getting annoying. He's running on a Federal level. He has no control over what states do, and from his perspective, the Fed. Gov. has no authority to overrule the state. Ultimately it's up to the PEOPLE to decide.

5) The younger generation will never see the benefits from Social Security. It's been a complete disaster. The same people who support SS help put people into office that spent all of the money. If Social Security is a legitimate retirement/insurance program as the politicians and the media claim, then what do taxes “to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” have to do with the constitutionality of Social Security? The answer can be found in the opening clause of the Social Security Act of 1935. It is entitled as “an Act to Provide for the General Welfare.” Since the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to compel the people of the several States to participate in a federal retirement or insurance program, Roosevelt and his New Dealers had to structure Social Security as an excise tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. They inserted the general welfare verbiage to make it appear as if the federal government was exercising a legitimate constitutional power."

3) The people WANT the federal government to do things paul is against. The people WANT the federal government to make sure their state government cannot take away their rights.

You're being a hypocrite and not arguing in good faith to say that when the federal government does something it's "anti-people", but when state governments do it the rules change. States are not people.

5) Social Security is providing for the general welfare. How is that not obvious to you?

If by "complete disaster" you mean:

the most overwhelmingly popular (supported by 89% of voters - as if that mattered to libertarians) government program in U.S. history,

and that it actually does what it set out to do, while having a trillion dollar surplus that would be over 3 trillion dollars if that money hadn't been used to fund other things...

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.